History for ready reference, Volume 5, Tunnage to Zyp and Supplement

by J. N. Larned

The United States in 1860.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1801.
First American naval demonstration against the Barbary Pirates.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1785-1801.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1802.
Admission of Ohio to the Union.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1788-1802.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1802-1804.
Land cessions of Georgia annexed to Mississippi Territory.
See MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1798-1804.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1803.
The Louisiana Purchase.
Its constitutional and political aspects.
"The Mississippi question, which had played so important a
part in the times of the confederation, had arisen again and
demanded a solution, as Spain had, on the 1st of October,
1800, ceded the whole of Louisiana to France. The United
States had had experience enough already of how dangerous and
how great an obstacle in the way of the commercial development
of the country it might become, if the mouth of the
Mississippi were in the possession of a foreign power, even if
it were no stronger than Spain. Jefferson had not shared in
this experience in vain. This was one of the instances in
which he gave evidence of a really statesmanlike insight. He
wrote on the 18th of April, 1802, to his embassador Livingston
in Paris: This cession 'completely reverses all the political
relations of the United States, and will form a new epoch in
our political course. … There is on the globe one single spot,
the possessor of which is our natural and habitual enemy.'
Livingston was instructed to enter into negotiations
immediately for the cession of New Orleans and the Floridas,
in case France should consider the possession of Louisiana
indispensably necessary. As Bonaparte at this very time
entertained the idea of resuming the old French colonial
policy, the negotiations remained long without result. The
uprising of the negroes in San Domingo and the warlike turn
which the affairs of Europe began again to assume, disposed
him more favorably towards the American offer. On the 30th of
April, 1803, the treaty, ceding the whole of Louisiana to the
United States for $15,000,000, was concluded in Paris.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.
Hamilton shared Jefferson's view, that the purchase of
Louisiana was a question of the greatest, and even of vital,
importance for the Union. His opposition on other occasions to
the policy of the administration, and his personal enmity to
the president, did not prevent his lending him a helping hand
in this matter when an opportunity offered. The great majority
of the Federalists opposed this increase of the territory of
the Union with as much decision as Hamilton advocated it. They
showed in their attitude towards this question a
short-sightedness which would have been astonishing even among
the doctrinarians of the opposite party."
H. von Holst,
Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
volume 1, pages 183-185.
"Mr. Jefferson belonged to the school of strict construction,
and was in fact its leader and apostle. … Under a construction
of the Constitution as strict as he had been insisting upon,
it was plain that the government would have no power to
acquire foreign territory by purchase, and that any attempt in
that direction would be usurpation. … To give the necessary
authority an amendment of the Constitution would be essential,
and amendment would be a slow process which might not be
accomplished in time to meet the emergency. The case would be
complicated by the fact that if the territory was acquired a
considerable population would be brought into the Union and
thus made citizens by a process of naturalization not
contemplated by the Constitution. Mr. Madison, the Secretary
of State, agreed with the President in his views. To use Mr.
Jefferson's words, "The Constitution has made no provision for
our holding foreign territory; still less for incorporating
foreign nations into our Union.' But under circumstances so
imperative he thought the political departments of the
government should meet the emergency by consummating the
purchase, and 'then appeal to the nation for an additional
article in the Constitution approving and confirming an act
which the nation had not previously authorized.' He did not
conceal from himself, however, that in so doing ground would
be occupied which it would be difficult to defend, and he
proceeds to say: 'The less that is said about any
constitutional difficulty the better. Congress should do what
is necessary in silence. I find but one opinion as to the
necessity of shutting up the Constitution for some time.' Mr.
John Quincy Adams held similar views. … But it is difficult to
conceive of any doctrine more dangerous or more distinctly
antagonistic to the fundamental ideas of the American Union
than the doctrine that the Constitution may be 'shut up' for a
time in order that the government may accomplish something not
warranted by it. The political immorality was obvious and
glaring; more so in the case of the apostle of strict
construction than it could have been if advanced by any other
statesman of the day. … But Mr. Jefferson's political mistake
was scarcely greater than that committed by his opponents:
and, indeed, from a party standpoint it was no mistake
whatsoever, but a bold measure of wise policy.
{3328}
… The purchase, according to the Federal view of the
Constitution, was perfectly legitimate. … But the Federalists
in general took narrow and partisan views, and in order to
embarrass the administration resorted to quibbles which were
altogether unworthy the party which had boasted of Washington
as its chief and Hamilton as the exponent of its doctrines. …
The Federal leaders did not stop at cavils; they insisted that
the unconstitutional extension of territory was in effect a
dissolution of the Union, so that they were at liberty to
contemplate and plan for a final disruption."
Judge T. M. Cooley,
The Acquisition of Louisiana
(Indiana Historical Society Pamphlets, number 3).
The result of the debates on the Louisiana treaty, in the
Senate and the House, "decided only one point. Every speaker,
without distinction of party, agreed that the United States
government had the power to acquire new territory either by
conquest or by treaty; the only difference of opinion regarded
the disposition of this territory after it was acquired. Did
Louisiana belong to the central government at Washington, or
to the States? … Whether the government at Washington could
possess Louisiana as a colony or admit it as a State, was a
difference of no great matter if the cession were to hold
good; the essential point was that for the first time in the
national history all parties agreed in admitting that the
government could govern. … Even in 1804 the political
consequences of the act were already too striking to be
overlooked. Within three years of his inauguration Jefferson
bought a foreign colony without its consent and against its
will, annexed it to the United States by an act which he said
made blank paper of the Constitution; and then he who had
found his predecessors too monarchical, and the Constitution
too liberal in powers,—he who had nearly dissolved the bonds
of society rather than allow his predecessor to order a
dangerous alien out of the country in a time of threatened
war,—made himself monarch of the new territory, and wielded
over it, against its protests, the powers of its old kings.
Such an experience was final; no century of slow and
half-understood experience could be needed to prove that the
hopes of humanity lay thenceforward, not in attempting to
restrain the government from doing whatever the majority
should think necessary, but in raising the people themselves
till they should think nothing necessary but what was good."
H. Adams,
History of the United States of America
during the first Administration of Jefferson,
volume 2, chapters 4-6.
ALSO IN:
Treaties and Conventions between the United States
and other Powers (edition of 1889),
pages 331-342.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1803.
Report on the British impressment of seamen from American ships.
"In consequence of a resolution of the Senate, calling upon
the President for information respecting the violation of the
national flag, and the impressment of American seamen, he
communicated to that body a letter from the Secretary of
State, specifying all the cases of impressment which had come
to the knowledge of that Department. The Secretary had no
information of the violation of the national flag, except in
the recent aggression of Morocco. It appeared, by this report,
that 43 citizens of the United States had been impressed by
the British, of whom 12 had protections. Ten were natives of
the British dominions, and 17 of other countries, none of whom
were stated to have been naturalized. Thus a practice which,
even within the British dominions, violates the dearest rights
of personal liberty, and which their courts have never
ventured to justify, and which is excused and acquiesced in on
the plea of necessity, was unhesitatingly exercised by British
navy officers on board of American vessels."
G. Tucker,
History of the United States,
chapter 12 (volume 2).
"When the captain of a British frigate overhauled an American
merchant-vessel for enemy's property or contraband of war, he
sent an officer on board who mustered the crew, and took out
any seamen whom he believed to be British. The measure, as the
British navy regarded it, was one of self-protection. If the
American government could not or would not discourage
desertion, the naval commander would recover his men in the
only way he could. Thus a circle of grievances was established
on each side. … The growth of American shipping stimulated
desertions from the British service to the extent of injuring
its efficiency; and these desertions in their turn led to a
rigorous exercise of the right of impressment. To find some
point at which this vicious circle could be broken was a
matter of serious consequence to both countries, but most so
to the one which avowed that it did not mean to protect its
interest by force. Great Britain could have broken the circle
by increasing the pay and improving the condition of her
seamen; but she was excessively conservative, and the burdens
already imposed on her commerce were so great that she could
afford to risk nothing. … Conscious of her own power, she
thought that the United States should be first to give way.
Had the American government been willing to perform its
neutral obligations strictly, the circle might have been
broken without much trouble; but the United States wished to
retain their advantage, and preferred to risk whatever England
might do rather than discourage desertion, or enact and
enforce a strict naturalization law, or punish fraud, The
national government was too weak to compel the States to
respect neutral obligations, even if it had been disposed to
make the attempt. The practice of impressment brought the two
governments to a deadlock on an issue of law. No one denied
that every government had the right to command the services of
its native subjects, and as yet no one ventured to maintain
that a merchant-ship on the high seas could lawfully resist
the exercise of this right; but the law had done nothing to
define the rights of naturalized subjects or citizens. The
British government might, no doubt, impress its own subjects;
but almost every British sailor in the American service
carried papers of American citizenship, and although some of
these were fraudulent, many were genuine. The law of England,
as declared from time out of mind by every generation of her
judges, held that the allegiance of a subject was
indefeasible, and therefore that naturalization was worthless.
The law of the United States, as declared by Chief-Justice
Ellsworth in 1799, was in effect the same."
H. Adams,
History of the United States of America, during
the first Administration of Thomas Jefferson,
volume 2, chapter 14.
{3329}
"Great Britain was clearly in the wrong. She ought to have
kept her seamen by increasing their pay and putting an end to
the grievances which produced the mutiny of the Nore. In
heartlessly neglecting to render the service just to the
common sailor, and at the same time making a brutal use of
impressment, aristocratic government showed its dark side. It
is true that impressment was conscription in a coarse form,
and that the extreme notion of indefeasible allegiance still
prevailed. But the practice, however lawful, was intolerable,
and its offensiveness was sure to be aggravated by the conduct
of British commanders full of the naval pride of their nation
and perhaps irritated by the loss of their crews; for it is
not denied that many British seamen were seduced from the
service and that the American marine, both mercantile and
national, was largely manned in this way."
Goldwin Smith,
The United States,
chapter 3.
See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1803-1804.
Federalist Secession movement.
"In the winter … of 1803-4, immediately after, and as a
consequence of, the acquisition of Louisiana, certain leaders
of the Federal party conceived the project of the dissolution
of the Union, and the establishment of a Northern Confederacy.
The justifying causes to those who entertained it were, that
the annexation of Louisiana to the Union transcended the
constitutional powers of the government of the United States;
that it created, in fact, a new confederacy, to which the
States, united by the former compact, were not bound to
adhere; that it was oppressive to the interests and
destructive to the influence of the Northern section of the
Confederacy, whose right and duty it therefore was to secede
from the new body politic, and to constitute one of their own.
It was lamented that one inevitable consequence of the
annexation of Louisiana to the Union would be to diminish the
relative weight and influence of the Northern section; that it
would aggravate the evil of the slave representation; and
endanger the Union itself, by the expansion of its bulk, and
the enfeebling extension of its line of de·fence against
foreign invasion. A Northern Confederacy was thought to be the
only probable counterpoise to the manufacture of new States in
the South. This project was quietly and extensively discussed
at the time, by the members of Congress from Massachusetts and
Connecticut especially. General Hamilton, indeed, was chosen
as the person to be placed, at the proper time, at the head of
the military movement which, it was foreseen, would be
necessary for carrying the plan into execution. He was
consulted on the subject; and although it is quite certain
that he was opposed to it, he consented to attend a meeting of
Federalists in Boston in the autumn of 1804, but his untimely
death, in the summer of that year, prevented the meeting. To
whatever proportions, however, the project might otherwise
have gone, it was checked by the advantage which was evident
to all of the securing of so large a domain, by the great
desirableness of preventing France from holding the mouth of
our great river, and by the settlement of the question of our
national boundaries. These considerations gave a quietus for a
time to the suggestions of sectional jealousy."
C. F. Robertson,
The Louisiana Purchase in its Influence
upon the American System
(Papers of the American Historical Association, volume 1),
pages 262-263.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804.
Fifth Presidential Election.
Thomas Jefferson, Democratic Republican, reelected by the vote
of 162 Electors in the College, against 14 voting for Charles
C. Pinckney, Federalist. George Clinton was chosen Vice
President.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805.
Impeachment and trial of Judge Chase.
In the closing hours of the session of Congress which expired
March 4, 1803, proceedings of impeachment were begun for the
removal from the bench of Judge Pickering, United States
District Judge of New Hampshire, who had become mentally
incapable of discharging the duties of his office. "By the
federalists, the attack on Judge Pickering was taken as the
first of a series of impeachments, intended to revolutionize
the political character of the courts, but there is nothing to
prove that this was then the intent of the majority. The most
obnoxious justice on the supreme bench was Samuel Chase of
Maryland, whose violence as a political partisan had certainly
exposed him to the danger of impeachment; but two years had
now passed without producing any sign of an intention to
disturb him, and it might be supposed that the administration
thus condoned his offences. Unluckily, Judge Chase had not the
good taste or the judgment to be quiet. He irritated his
enemies by new indiscretions, and on May 13, 1803, nearly
three months after Pickering's impeachment, Mr. Jefferson, in
a letter to Joseph H. Nicholson, suggested that it would be
well to take him in hand:—'You must have heard of the
extraordinary charge of Chase to the grand jury at Baltimore.
Ought this seditious and official attack on the principles of
our Constitution and on the proceedings of a State to go
unpunished? And to whom so pointedly as yourself will the
public look for the necessary measures? I ask these questions
for your consideration. As for myself, it is better that I
should not interfere.' … Nicholson seems to have passed on to
Randolph the charge he had received from the President. … On
January 5, 1804, Randolph rose to move for an inquiry into the
conduct of Judge Chase. … After a long debate, the inquiry was
ordered, and Randolph, with his friend Nicholson, was put at
the head of the committee. On March 26, 1804, they reported
seven articles of impeachment. … With this the session ended,
and the trial went over to the next year. … The impeachment of
Justice Chase is a landmark in American history, because it
was here that the Jeffersonian republicans fought their last
aggressive battle, and, wavering under the shock of defeat,
broke into factions which slowly abandoned the field and
forgot their discipline. That such a battle must one day be
fought for the control of the Judiciary was from the beginning
believed by most republicans who understood their own
principles. Without controlling the Judiciary, the people
could never govern themselves in their own way; and although
they might, over and over again, in every form of law and
resolution, both state and national, enact and proclaim that
theirs was not a despotic but a restricted government, which
had no right to exercise powers not delegated to it, and over
which they, as States, had absolute control, it was none the
less certain that Chief Justice Marshall and his associates
would disregard their will, and would impose upon them his
own. The people were at the mercy of their creatures. The
Constitutions of England, of Massachusetts, of Pennsylvania,
authorized the removal of an obnoxious judge on a mere address
of the legislature, but the Constitution of the United States
had so fenced and fortified the Supreme Court that the
legislature, the Executive, the people themselves, could
exercise no control over it.
{3330}
A judge might make any decision, violate any duty, trample on
any right, and if he took care to commit no indictable offence
he was safe in office for life. On this license the
Constitution imposed only one check: it said that all civil
officers should be removed from office 'on impeachment for,
and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors.' This right of impeachment was as yet undefined,
and if stretched a little beyond strict construction it might
easily be converted into something for which it had not been
intended. … Judge Chase's offences were serious. The immediate
cause of impeachment, his address to the grand jury at
Baltimore on the 2d May, 1803, proved that he was not a proper
person to be trusted with the interpretation of the laws. In
this address he said that those laws were rapidly destroying
all protection to property and all security to personal
liberty. 'The late alteration of the federal Judiciary,' said
he, 'by the abolition of the office of the sixteen circuit
judges, and the recent change in our state Constitution by the
establishing of universal suffrage, and the further alteration
that is contemplated in our state Judiciary, if adopted, will,
in my judgment, take away all security for property and
personal liberty. The independence of the national Judiciary
is already shaken to its foundations, and the virtue of the
people alone can restore it.' That by this reference to the
virtue of the people he meant to draw a contrast with the want
of virtue in their government was made clear by a pointed
insult to Mr. Jefferson: 'The modern doctrines by our late
reformers, that all men in a state of society are entitled to
enjoy equal liberty and equal rights, have brought this mighty
mischief upon us, and I fear that it will rapidly progress
until peace and order, freedom and property, shall be
destroyed.' … There was gross absurdity in the idea that the
people who, by an immense majority, had decided to carry on
their government in one way should be forced by one of their
own servants to turn about and go in the opposite direction;
and the indecorum was greater than the absurdity, for if Judge
Chase or any other official held such doctrines, even though
he were right, he was bound not to insult officially the
people who employed him. On these grounds Mr. Jefferson
privately advised the impeachment, and perhaps Randolph might
have acted more wisely had he followed Mr. Jefferson's hint to
rely on this article alone, which in the end came nearer than
any other to securing conviction. … The articles of
impeachment which Randolph presented to the House on March 26,
1804, and which were, he claimed, drawn up with his own hand,
rested wholly on the theory of Chase's criminality; they
contained no suggestion that impeachment was a mere inquest of
office. But when Congress met again, and, on December 3, the
subject came again before the House, it was noticed that two
new articles, the fifth and sixth, had been quietly
interpolated, which roused suspicion of a change in Randolph's
plan. … No one could doubt that Randolph and his friends,
seeing how little their ultimate object would be advanced by a
conviction on the old charges, inserted these new articles in
order to correct their mistake and to make a foundation for
the freer use of impeachment as a political weapon. The
behavior of Giles and his friends in the Senate strengthened
this suspicion. He made no concealment of his theories, and
labored earnestly to prevent the Senate from calling itself a
court, or from exercising any functions that belonged to a
court of law."
H. Adams,
John Randolph,
chapters 4-6.
The doctrine of impeachment which Giles (Senator from
Virginia) and John Randolph maintained, in connection with the
trial of Judge Chase, and which seems to have been acquiesced
in by the majority of their party, is reported by John Quincy
Adams from a conversation to which he was a listener. In Mr.
Adams' Memoirs, under date of December 21, 1804, the incident
is related as follows: "There was little business to do [in
the Senate], and the adjournment took place early. Sitting by
the fireside afterwards, I witnessed a conversation between
Mr. Giles and Mr. Israel Smith, on the subject of
impeachments; during which Mr. John Randolph came in and took
part in the discussion. Giles labored with excessive
earnestness to convince Smith of certain principles, upon
which not only Mr. Chase, but all the other Judges of the
Supreme Court, excepting the one last appointed, must be
impeached and removed. He treated with the utmost contempt the
idea of an 'independent' judiciary—said there was not a word
about such an independence in the Constitution, and that their
pretensions to it were nothing more nor less than an attempt
to establish an aristocratic despotism in themselves. The
power of impeachment was given without limitation to the House
of Representatives; the power of trying impeachments was given
equally without limitation to the Senate; and if the Judges of
the Supreme Court should dare, as they had done, to declare an
act of Congress unconstitutional, or to send a mandamus to the
Secretary of State, as they had done, it was the undoubted
right of the House of Representatives to impeach them, and of
the Senate to remove them, for giving such opinions, however
honest and sincere they may have been in entertaining them.
Impeachment was not a criminal prosecution; it was no
prosecution at all. The Senate sitting for the trial of
impeachments was not a court, and ought to discard and reject
all process of analogy to a court of justice. A trial and
removal of a judge upon impeachment need not imply any
criminality or corruption in him. Congress had no power over
the person, but only over the office. And a removal by
impeachment was nothing more than a declaration by Congress to
this effect: You hold dangerous opinions, and if you are
suffered to carry them into effect you will work the
destruction of the nation. We want your offices, for the
purpose of giving them to men who will fill them better. In
answer to all this, Mr. Smith only contended that honest error
of opinion could not, as he conceived, be a subject of
impeachment. And in pursuit of this principle he proved
clearly enough the persecution and tyranny to which those of
Giles and Randolph inevitably lead. It would, he said,
establish 'a tyranny over opinions,' and he traced all the
arguments of Giles to their only possible issue of rank
absurdity. In all this conversation I opened my lips but once,
in which I told Giles that I could not assent to his
definition of the term impeachment."
J. Q. Adams,
Memoirs,
edited by C. F. Adams,
volume 1, pages 322-323.
{3331}
The trial of Judge Chase was opened on the 9th of February,
1805, and ended on the 23d. By votes ranging from 15 to 34
(the total number of Senators being 34), he was acquitted on
each of the charges—a result attributed considerably to the
offensive and incapable manner in which the prosecution had
been conducted by John Randolph.
J. Schouler,
History of the United States,
volume 2, page 77.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805.
Expedition of Lewis and Clark across the continent.
The first exploration of the Missouri and beyond.
Captain Meriwether Lewis and Captain William Clark "were the
first men to cross the continent in our zone, the truly golden
zone. A dozen years before them, Mackenzie had crossed in
British dominions far north, but settlements are even now
sparse in that parallel. Still earlier had Mexicans traversed
the narrowing continent from the Gulf to the Pacific, but
seemed to find little worth discovery. It was otherwise in the
zone penetrated by Lewis and Clark. There development began at
once and is now nowhere surpassed. Along their route ten
States, with a census in 1890 of eight and a half millions,
have arisen in the wilderness. … The credit of our Great
Western discovery is due to Jefferson, though he never crossed
the Alleghanies. When Columbus saw the Orinoco rushing into
the ocean with irrepressible power and volume, he knew that he
had anchored at the mouth of a continental river. So
Jefferson, ascertaining that the Missouri, though called a
branch, at once changed the color and character of the
Mississippi, felt sure that whoever followed it would reach
the innermost recesses of our America. Learning afterward that
Captain Gray had pushed into the mouth of the Columbia only
after nine days' breasting its outward current, he deemed that
river a worthy counterpart of the Missouri, and was convinced
that their headwaters could not be far apart in longitude.
Inaugurated in 1801, before his first Presidential term was
half over he had obtained, as a sort of secret-service fund,
the small sum which sufficed to fit out the expedition. He had
also selected Lewis, his private secretary, for its head, and
put him in a course of special training. But the actual voyage
up the Missouri, purchased April 30, 1803, was not begun till
the middle of May, 1804. Forty-five persons in three boats
composed the party. … After 171 days the year's advance ended
with October, for the river was ready to freeze. The distance
up stream they reckoned at 1,600 miles, or little more than 9
miles a day, a journey now made by railroad in forty-four
hours. … Winter quarters were thirty miles above the Bismarck
of our day. Here they were frozen in about five months. The
huts they built and abundant fuel kept them warm. Thanks to
their hunters and Indian traffic, food was seldom scarce.
Officials of the Hudson's Bay Company (who had a post within a
week's journey) and many inquisitive natives paid them visits.
From all these it was their tireless endeavor to learn
everything possible concerning the great unknown of the river
beyond. Scarcely one could tell about distant places from
personal observation, but some second-hand reports were
afterward proved strangely accurate, even as to the Great
Falls, which turned out to be a thousand miles away. It was
not long, however, before they learned that the wife of
Chaboneau, whom they had taken as a local interpreter, was a
captive whose birth had been in the Rocky Mountains. She,
named the Bird-woman, was the only person discoverable after a
winter's search who could by possibility serve them as
interpreter and guide among the unknown tongues and
labyrinthine fastnesses which they must encounter. Early in
April, 1805, the explorers, now numbering thirty-two, again
began to urge their boats up the river, for their last year's
labors had brought them no more than half-way to their first
objective, its source. No more Indian purveyors or pilots:
their own rifles were the sole reliance for food. Many a
wigwam, but no Indian, was espied for four months and four
days after they left their winter camp. It was through the
great Lone Land that they groped their dark and perilous way.
In twenty days after the spring start they arrived at the
Yellowstone, and in thirty more they first sighted the Rocky
Mountains. Making the portage at the Great Falls cost them a
month of vexatious delay. Rowing on another month brought them
on August 12 to a point where one of the men stood with one
foot each side of the rivulet, and 'thanked God that he had
lived to bestride the Missouri, heretofore deemed endless.'
They dragged their canoes, however, up the rivulet for five
days longer. It was 460 days since they had left the mouth of
the river, and their mileage on its waters had been 3,096
miles. A mile further they stood on the great divide, and
drank of springs which sent their water to the Pacific. But
meantime they had been ready to starve in the mountains. Their
hunters were of the best, but they found no game: buffaloes
had gone down into the lowlands, the birds of heaven had fled,
and edible roots were mostly unknown to them. For more than
four months they had looked, and lo! there was no man. It was
not till August 13 that, surprising a squaw so encumbered with
pappooses that she could not escape, and winning her heart by
the gift of a looking-glass and painting her cheeks, they
formed friendship with her nation, one of whose chiefs proved
to be a brother of their Bird-woman. Horses were about all
they could obtain of these natives, streams were too full of
rapids to be navigable, or no timber fit for canoes was within
reach. So the party, subsisting on horse-flesh, and afterwards
on dog-meat, toiled on along one of the worst possible routes.
Nor was it till the 7th of October that they were able to
embark in logs they had burned hollow, upon a branch of the
Columbia, which, after manifold portages and perils, bore them
to its mouth and the goal of their pilgrimage, late in
November. Its distance from the starting-point, according to
their estimate, was 4,134 miles. … Many an episode in this
eventful transcontinental march and countermarch will
hereafter glorify with romantic associations islands, rivers,
rocks, cañons, and mountains all along its track. Among these
none can be more touching than the story of the Bird-woman,
her divination of routes, her courage when men quailed, her
reunion with a long-lost brother, her spreading as good a
table with bones as others could with meat, her morsel of
bread for an invalid benefactor, her presence with her infant
attesting to savages that the expedition could not be hostile.
But when bounties in land and money were granted to others,
she was unthought of. Statues of her, however, must yet be
reared by grateful dwellers in lands she laid open for their
happy homes. Western poets will liken her to Ariadne and
Beatrice."
The Nation,
October 26, 1893
(Reviewing Dr. Coues' edition of "History of the
Expedition under the Command of Lewis and Clark").
{3332}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805,
Jefferson's Plans of National defense.
His Gunboat fleet.
Mr. Jefferson's views as to the measures required for national
defense, in the disturbed foreign relations of the country,
were indicated in his message to Congress, when it assembled
in November, 1804, but were afterwards communicated more fully
to Mr. Nicholson, of Maryland, chairman of the committee to
which the subject was referred. "Concerning fortifications, he
remarks that the plans and estimates of those required for our
principal harbours, made fifty millions of dollars necessary
for their completion. It would require 2,000 men to garrison
them in peace, and 50,000 in war. When thus completed and
manned, they would avail but little, as all military men agree
that when vessels might pass a fort without tacking, though it
may annoy, it cannot prevent them. Two modes of effecting the
same object might be 'adopted in aid of each other.' 1. Heavy
cannon on travelling carriages, with militia trained to the
management of them. 2. Floating batteries or gunboats. There
were, he estimated, fifteen harbours in the United States
needing and deserving defence. They would require 250
gunboats. The cost of these had been estimated at 2,000
dollars each, but he puts it down at 4,000, amounting in all
to 1,000,000 dollars. Such of them as were kept under a
shelter, ready to be launched, when wanted, would cost nothing
more than an inclosure, or sentinel; those that were afloat,
with men enough to take care of them, about 2,000 dollars a
year each; and those fully manned for action about 8,000
dollars a year. He thought twenty-five of the second
description enough, when France and England were at war. When
at war ourselves, some of the third description would be
required, the precise number depending on circumstances. There
were ten then built and building, and fifteen more it was
thought would be sufficient to put every harbour into a
respectable state of defence. Congress, neither fulfilling the
wishes of the President, nor altogether resisting them, gave
the President the means of partially trying his favourite
scheme, by the appropriation of 60,000 dollars. The
sufficiency of this species of naval defence occasioned a good
deal of discussion about this time between the opponents and
the supporters of the administration. … The scheme was
vehemently assailed by his adversaries in every form of
argument and ridicule, and was triumphantly adduced as a
further proof that he was not a practical statesman. The
officers of the navy were believed to be, with scarcely an
exception, opposed to the system of gunboats, especially those
who were assigned to this service, partly because it was found
to be personally very uncomfortable, and yet more, perhaps,
because the power they wielded was so inferior, and their
command so insignificant, compared with that to which they had
been familiarized. It was like compelling a proud man to give
up a fine richly caparisoned charger for a pair of panniers
and a donkey. To stem the current of public opinion, which so
far as it was manifested, set so strong against these
gunboats, and to turn it in their favour, Mr. Jefferson
prevailed on Paine, who had since his return been addressing
the people of the United States on various topics, through the
newspapers, to become their advocate. He set about it with his
wonted self-confidence and real talent in enforcing his views,
and proceeded to show that a gun from a gunboat would do the
same execution as from a seventy-four, and cost no more,
perhaps less; but a ship carrying seventy-four guns, could
bring only one half to bear on an enemy at once, whereas if
they were distributed among seventy-four boats, they could all
be equally effective at once. In spite of this logic, the
public, pinning its faith on experienced men, remained
incredulous; and when, soon afterwards, many of the new marine
were driven ashore in a tempest, or were otherwise destroyed,
no one seemed to regard their loss as a misfortune, and the
officers of the navy did not affect to conceal their
satisfaction: nor has any attempt been since made to replace
them. … The error of Mr. Jefferson was not, as his enemies
charged, in adopting a visionary scheme of defence, but in
limiting his views from a motive of economy, to the protection
of the harbours, and in leaving his country's commerce and
seamen, on the ocean, defenceless."
G. Tucker,
The Life of Thomas Jefferson,
volume 2, chapter 8.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.
Difficulties with Great Britain.
Neutral rights.
The Right of Search.
Impressment.
Blockade by Orders in Council and the Berlin and Milan Decrees.
Embargo and Non-intercourse.
For a time, after 1803, almost the whole carrying trade of
Europe was in American hands. "The merchant flag of every
belligerent, save England, disappeared from the sea. France
and Holland absolutely ceased to trade under their flags.
Spain for a while continued to transport her specie and her
bullion in her own ships protected by her men-of-war. But
this, too, she soon gave up, and by 1806 the dollars of Mexico
and the ingots of Peru were brought to her shores in American
bottoms. It was under our flag that the gum trade was carried
on with Senegal; that the sugar trade was carried on with
Cuba; that coffee was exported from Caracas; and hides and
indigo from South America. From Vera Cruz, from Carthagena,
from La Plata, from the French colonies in the Antilles, from
Cayenne, from Dutch Guiana, from the Isles of France and
Reunion, from Batavia and Manilla, great fleets of American
merchantmen sailed for the United States, there to neutralize
the voyage and then go on to Europe. They filled the
warehouses at Cadiz and Antwerp to overflowing. They glutted
the markets of Embden and Lisbon, Hamburg and Copenhagen with
the produce of the West Indies and the fabrics of the East,
and, bringing back the products of the looms and forges of
Germany to the New World, drove out the manufactures of
Yorkshire, Manchester, and Birmingham. But this splendid trade
was already marked for destruction. That Great Britain should
long treat it with indifference was impossible. … She
determined … to destroy it, and to destroy it in two ways: by
paper blockades and by admiralty decisions. In January, 1804,
accordingly, Great Britain blockaded the ports of Guadeloupe
and Martinique. In April her commander at Jamaica blockaded
Curaçoa. In August she extended the blockade to the Straits of
Dover and the English Channel."
J. B. McMaster,
History of the People of the United States,
volume 3, pages 225-226.
{3333}
"It had not yet come to be the acknowledged law of nations
that free ships make free goods. But nearly the same purpose
was answered, if the property of belligerents could be safely
carried in neutral ships under the pretense of being owned by
neutrals. The products of the French colonies, for example,
could be loaded on board of American vessels, taken to the
United States and reshipped there for France as American
property. England looked upon this as an evasion of the
recognized public law that property of belligerents was good
prize. … It was denied that neutrals could take advantage of a
state of war to enter upon a trade which had not existed in
time of peace; and American ships were seized on the high
seas, taken into port, and condemned in the Admiralty Courts
for carrying enemy's goods in such a trade. The exercise of
that right, if it were one by the recognized law of nations,
would be of great injury to American commerce, unless it could
be successfully resisted. … A war with England must be a naval
war; and the United States not only had no navy of any
consequence, but it was a part of Mr. Jefferson's policy, in
contrast with the policy of the preceding administrations,
that there should be none, except … gunboats kept on wheels
and under cover in readiness to repel an invasion. But there
was no fear of invasion, for by that England could gain
nothing. 'She is renewing,' Madison wrote in the autumn of
1805, 'her depredations on our commerce in the most ruinous
shapes, and has kindled a more general indignation among our
merchants than was ever before expressed.' These depredations
were not confined to the seizing and confiscating American
ships under the pretense that their cargoes were contraband.
Seamen were taken out of them on the charge of being British
subjects and deserters, not only on the high seas in larger
numbers than ever before, but within the waters of the United
States. No doubt these seamen were often British subjects and
their seizure was justifiable, provided England could
rightfully extend to all parts of the globe and to the ships
of all nations the merciless system of impressment to which
her own people were compelled to submit at home. … But even if
it could be granted that English naval officers might seize
such men without recourse to law, wherever they should be
found and without respect for the flag of another nation, it
was a national insult and outrage, calling for resentment and
resistance, to impress American citizens under the pretense
that they were British subjects. But what was the remedy? As a
last resort in such cases, nations have but one. Diplomacy and
legislation may be first tried, but if these fail, war must be
the final ordeal. For this the Administration made no
preparation, and the more evident the unreadiness the less was
the chance of redress in any other way. … The first measure
adopted to meet the aggressions of the English was an act
prohibiting the importation of certain British products. This
had always been a favorite policy with Madison. … The
President and Secretary were in perfect accord; for Jefferson
preferred anything to war, and Madison was persuaded that
England would be brought to terms by the loss of the best
market for her manufactures. … But the Administration did not
rely upon legislation alone in this emergency. The President
followed up the act prohibiting the introduction of British
goods by sending William Pinkney to England in the spring of
1806, to join Monroe, the resident minister, in an attempt at
negotiation. These commissioners soon wrote that there was
good reason for hoping that a treaty would be concluded, and
thereupon the non-importation act was for a time suspended. In
December came the news that a treaty was agreed upon, and soon
after it was received by the President. … Monroe and Pinkney
were enjoined, in tho instructions written by the Secretary of
State, to make the abandonment of impressment the first
condition of a treaty. A treaty, nevertheless, was agreed
upon, without this provision. … Without consulting the Senate,
though Congress was in session when the treaty was received,
and although the Senate had been previously informed that one
had been agreed upon, the President rejected it. … As
England's need of seamen increased, the captains of her
cruisers, encouraged by the failure of negotiation, grew
bolder in overhauling American ships. … In the summer of 1807
an outrage was perpetrated on the frigate Chesapeake, as if to
emphasize the contempt with which a nation must be looked upon
which only screamed like a woman at wrongs which it wanted the
courage and strength to resent, or the wisdom to compound for.
The Chesapeake was followed out of the harbor of Norfolk by
the British man-of-war Leopard, and when a few miles at sea,
the Chesapeake being brought to under the pretense that the
English captain wished to put some dispatches on board for
Europe, a demand was made for certain deserters supposed to be
on the American frigate. Commodore Barron replied that he knew
of no deserters on his ship, and that he could permit no
search to be made, even if there were. After some further
altercation the Englishman fired a broadside, killing and
wounding a number of the Chesapeake's crew. Commodore Barron
could do nothing else but surrender, for he had only a single
gun in readiness for use, and that was fired only once and
then with a coal from the cook's galley. The ship was then
boarded, the crew mustered, and four men arrested as
deserters. Three of them were negroes,—two natives of the
United States, the other of South America. The fourth man,
probably, was an Englishman. … For this direct national
insult, explanation, apology, and reparation were demanded,
and at the same time the President put forth a proclamation
forbidding all British ships of war to remain in American
waters. … Some preparation was made for war, but it was only
to call upon the militia to be in readiness, and to order Mr.
Jefferson's gunboats to the most exposed ports. Great Britain
was not alarmed. The captain of the Leopard, indeed, was
removed from his command, as having exceeded his duty; but a
proclamation on that side was also issued, requiring all ships
of war to seize British seamen on board foreign merchantmen,
to demand them from foreign ships of war, and if the demand
was refused to report the fact to the admiral of the fleet. …
New perils all the while were besetting American commerce.
{3334}
In November, 1806, Napoleon's Berlin decree was promulgated,
forbidding the introduction into France of the products of
Great Britain and her colonies, whether in her own ships or
those of other nations. … The decree, it was declared, was a
rightful retaliation of a British order in council of six
months before, which had established a partial blockade of a
portion of the French coast. … In the autumn of 1807 [the
President] called a special session of Congress. … He sent a
special message to the Senate, recommending an embargo. An act
was almost immediately passed, which, if anything more was
needed to complete the ruin of American commerce, supplied
that deficiency. A month before this time the English ministry
had issued a new order in council—the news of which reached
Jefferson as he was about to send in his message—proclaiming a
blockade of pretty much all Europe, and forbidding any trade
in neutral vessels, unless they had first gone into some
British port and paid duties on their cargoes; and within 24
hours of the President's message, recommending the embargo,
Napoleon proclaimed a new decree from Milan, by which it was
declared that any ship was lawful prize that had anything
whatever to do with Great Britain. … Within four months of its
enactment, Josiah Quincy of Massachusetts declared, in a
debate in Congress, that 'an experiment, such as is now
making, was never before—I will not say tried—it never before
entered into the human imagination. There is nothing like it
in the narrations of history or in the tales of fiction.' …
The prosperity and tranquillity which marked the earlier years
of Jefferson's administration disappeared in its last year. …
The mischievous results of the embargo policy were evident
enough to a sufficient number of Republicans to secure, in
February, 1809, the repeal [by the Non-intercourse Bill] of
that measure, to take effect the next month as to all
countries except England and France."
S. H. Gay,
James Madison,
chapter 17.
The Non-intercourse Bill which repealed the general provisions
of the Embargo Act "excluded all public and private vessels of
France and England from American waters; forbade under severe
penalties the importation of British or French goods; … and
gave the President authority to reopen by proclamation the
trade with France or England in case either of these countries
should cease to violate neutral rights. … Such a
non-intercourse merely sanctioned smuggling."
H. Adams,
History of the United States:
Second Administration of Jefferson,
volume 2, page 445.
ALSO IN:
H. S. Randall,
Life of Jefferson,
volume 3, chapters 3-7.
E. Schuyler,
American Diplomacy,
chapters 5 and 7.
A. T. Mahan,
Influence of Sea Power on the French Revolution,
chapters 17-18 (volume 2).
F. Wharton,
Digest of the International Law of the United States,
chapters 7, 16, and 21 (volume 2-3).
See, also,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1803;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812,
and FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807.
Aaron Burr's filibustering scheme.
His arrest and trial.
Aaron Burr had been chosen vice-president in 1800. But he had
lost all his friends in both parties in the election. In the
course of a bitter political quarrel in New York, in 1804, he
challenged Hamilton to a duel. Hamilton was mad enough to
accept the challenge and was killed. Burr, "after his duel
with General Hamilton, and after the term of his office as
vice-president had expired, … seemed to be left alone, and
abandoned by all political parties. The state of public
feeling in New York was such, after the death of Hamilton,
that his presence in that city could not be endured. In New
Jersey he had been indicted by a grand jury for murder. Thus
situated, his ambitious, active and restless spirit rendered
his condition intolerable to himself. On the 22nd March, but a
few days after he left forever the presidency of the United
States senate, he wrote to his son-in-law, Mr. Joseph Alston,
that he 'was under ostracism. In New York,' said he, 'I am to
be disfranchised, and in New Jersey to be hanged. Having
substantial objections to both, I shall not, for the present,
hazard either, but shall seek another country.' Accordingly,
early in May, he left Philadelphia for the western country,
and arrived at Lexington, in Kentucky, on the 20th of that
month. After travelling with great rapidity through that
state, he directed his course to Nashville, in Tennessee, and
from thence he journied through the woods to Natchez. From
Natchez he went by land to New Orleans, where he arrived on
the 25th June, 1805. At that time, General Wilkinson was in
that city, or in its neighborhood, and commanded the United
States troops stationed there. It does not appear that he
remained long in New Orleans, but soon again returned to
Lexington, in Kentucky, by the way of Nashville. He was at
Cincinnati, and at several places in Ohio, but in a very short
time made his appearance at St. Louis, in Missouri, and from
thence he travelled to Washington, at which place he arrived
on the 29th day of November. These immense journies he
performed in a little more than six months; before the great
western rivers were rendered navigable by steam, and when the
roads were badly constructed; and through a considerable part
of the country traversed by him there were no roads at all.
His movements were veiled in mystery, and all men wondered
what could be the motive which induced these extraordinary
journies. From January, 1806, to the month of August
following, he spent his time principally in Washington and
Philadelphia; but, in the month of August, he again set his
face towards the west, and was soon afterwards found in
Kentucky. About this time boats were provided, provisions and
munitions of war were collected, and men were gathering at
different points on the Ohio and Cumberland rivers. Government
now began to be alarmed. Mr. Tiffin, governor of Ohio, under
the advice of the president (Jefferson), seized the boats and
their cargo, and Burr was arrested in Kentucky; but no
sufficient proof appearing against him he was discharged. On
the 23d January, 1807, Mr. Jefferson sent a message to
congress, accompanied by several affidavits, in which he gave
the history of Burr's transactions, so far as they had come to
the knowledge of the administration. The message stated that,
on the 21st of October, General Wilkinson wrote to the
president that, from a letter he had received from Burr, he
had ascertained that his objects were, a severance of the
union on the line of the Allegany mountains, an attack upon
Mexico, and the establishment of an independent government in
Mexico, of which Burr was to be the head. That to cover his
movements, he had purchased, or pretended to have purchased,
of one Lynch, a tract of country claimed by Baron Bastiop,
lying near Natchitoches, on which he proposed to make a
settlement.
{3335}
That he had found, by the proceedings of the governor and
people of Ohio and Kentucky, that the western people were not
prepared to join him; but notwithstanding, there was reason to
believe that he intended, with what force he could collect, to
attack New Orleans, get the control of the funds of the bank,
seize upon the military and naval stores which might be found
there, and then proceed against Mexico. The president assured
congress that there was no reason to apprehend that any
foreign power would aid Colonel Burr. A considerable part of
the evidence going to show that Burr entertained criminal
designs, depended on the affidavit of Wilkinson. It is not my
intention to examine into the proofs of the guilt or innocence
of Burr, further than to remark, that from the character of
the vain, vaporing and unprincipled Wilkinson, as before and
since developed, no dependence can safely be placed upon his
statements, unless supported by strong circumstances, or other
evidence; and I believe it will not at this day be doubted,
that if Burr plotted treason, Wilkinson, in the first
instance, agreed to be his accomplice; that, as their
operations progressed, he began seriously to doubt of success,
and then communicated his knowledge of the affair to the
government, in order to save himself, and perhaps obtain a
reward. … That Burr himself was deceived by Wilkinson, there
can be no doubt. … But there was other evidence besides that
of Wilkinson, against Burr, which has never been explained. …
If his object was merely an attack upon Mexico, why did he not

openly avow it, when charged and indicted for treason against
his country? … Again, unless Colonel William Eaton, the man
who had then recently so gallantly distinguished himself on
the Barbary coasts, has perjured himself, Burr did form a
treasonable plot against his country. Colonel Eaton, on the
26th January, deposed, in open court, held before Judge Cranch
and others, at Washington, that during the preceding winter
(1806), Burr called upon him, and, in the first instance,
represented that he was employed by the government to raise a
military force to attack the Spanish Provinces in North
America, and invited Eaton to take a command in the
expedition; that Eaton, being a restless, enterprising man,
readily acceded to the proposal; that Burr made frequent calls
upon him, and in his subsequent interviews complained of the
inefficiency and timidity of the government, and, eventually,
fully developed his project; which was to separate the western
states from the union, and establish himself as sovereign of
the country. … Burr did not succeed in collecting and
organizing a force on the western waters; but, on the 1st day
of March, he was discovered wandering alone in the Tombigbee
country, near the line of Florida. … The trial of the
indictment against Burr, for treason, occupied many weeks, but
he was finally acquitted by the jury, without swearing any
witness in his defence. The acquittal seems to have been on
technical grounds. … After his acquittal, Colonel Burr appears
still to have persevered in the project of making an effort to
detach Mexico from the Spanish government. On the 7th of June,
1808, he sailed from New York for Europe, it would seem in the
hope of engaging the British government to fit out an
expedition against Mexico, in which he would take a part. In
this he was entirely unsuccessful. His application to the
French government was equally vain and useless. He spent four
years wandering about in Europe."
J. D. Hammond,
History of Political Parties in the State of New York,
chapter 12 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
W. H. Safford,
The Blennerhassett Papers,
chapters 6-15.
M. L. Davis,
Memoirs of Burr,
volume 2, chapters 17-20.
J. Parton,
Life of Burr,
chapters 21-26 (volume 2).
H. Adams,
History of the United States:
Second Administration of Jefferson,
volume 1, chapters 10-14 and 19.
D. Robertson,
Report of Trials of Burr.
See BLENNERHASSETT'S ISLAND.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1812.
The Cumberland Road.
The first National work of "Internal Improvement."
"In 1806 the United States began the Cumberland Road, its
first work of the kind; but it was intended to open up the
public lands in Ohio and the country west, and was nominally
paid for out of the proceeds of those public lands. Just as
the embargo policy was taking effect, Gallatin, encouraged by
the accumulation of a surplus in the Treasury, brought in a
report, April 4, 1808, suggesting the construction of a great
system of internal improvements: it was to include coastwise
canals across the isthmuses of Cape Cod, New Jersey, upper
Delaware and eastern North Carolina; roads were to be
constructed from Maine to Georgia, and thence to New Orleans,
and from Washington westward to Detroit and St. Louis. He
estimated the cost at twenty millions, to be provided in ten
annual instalments. Jefferson himself was so carried away with
this prospect of public improvement that he recommended a
constitutional amendment to authorize such expenditures. The
whole scheme disappeared when the surplus vanished; but from
year to year small appropriations were made for the Cumberland
Road, so that up to 1812 more than $200,000 had been expended
upon it."
A. B. Hart,
Formation of the Union
(Epochs of American History),
section 121.
"The Cumberland Road was always a pet enterprise with Mr.
Clay. … Its eastern terminus was Cumberland on the Potomac,
from which it takes its name. Thence it was projected to
Wheeling on the Ohio, crossing the Alleganies; from Wheeling
to Columbus, Ohio; and thence westward through Indiana,
Illinois, and Missouri, to Jefferson, the capital of the
latter State. … After Mr. Clay went to Congress in 1806, and
while he was there, this great national work required and
realized his constant attention and zealous advocacy. It was
owing to his exertions chiefly that it ever reached Wheeling,
and passed on so far into the State of Ohio. The last
appropriations made for this road were in 1834 and 1835, with
a view of repairing it, and giving it over to the States
through which it passed, if they would accept it, and keep it
in repair."
C. Colton,
Life, Correspondence, and Speeches of Henry Clay,
volume 6, page 7.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1807.
Practical beginning of steam-boat navigation.
See STEAM NAVIGATION.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1807.
Abolition of the Slave-Trade.
The measure in Congress.
Significance of Southern action.
By the terms of the Constitution, Congress was deprived of
power to interfere with the importation of slaves before the
year 1808, but no longer. The time now approached when that
restraint would cease, and the President in his annual message
brought the subject to notice.
{3336}
"It was referred to a committee of which Mr. Early of Georgia
was the chairman. There was no difference of opinion as to the
prohibition of the traffic, or at least no expression of any;
but the practical details of the law, the penalties by which
it was to be enforced, and, above all, the disposition to be
made of such negroes as might be brought into the country in
violation of it, gave rise to violent and excited debates. The
committee reported a law prohibiting the slave-trade after the
31st of December, 1807, imposing certain penalties for its
breach, and providing that all negroes imported after that
date should be forfeited. The object of this provision
undoubtedly was to obtain directly what the Constitution only
gave indirectly and by implication,—the sanction of the
government of the United States to the principle of
slave-holding, by making it hold and sell men as property. The
astuteness of the slave-holding mind on all points touching
slavery was shown in this proposition, and all the tactics of
bullying and bluster with which later Congressional campaigns
have made us familiar, were employed in the debate to which it
gave rise. It having been moved that the words 'shall be
entitled to his or her freedom' should be inserted after the
word 'forfeited,' a furious fight ensued over this amendment.
The Southern members resisted it, on the ground that the
emancipation of the imported Africans would increase the
number of free negroes, who, as Mr. Early affirmed, 'were
considered in the States where they are found in considerable
numbers as instruments of murder, theft, and conflagration.'
And so craftily was this proposition of forfeiture to the
government qualified, that its drift was not at first
discerned by the Northern members. For, strong as was their
disapprobation of slavery in the abstract, they felt no
disposition to expose their Southern brethren to all the
horrors of insurrection which it was assumed would follow the
multiplication of free negroes. Indeed, Mr. Early candidly
said, that, if these negroes were left free in the Southern
States, not one of them would be alive in a year. And although
the Federalists as a party, and Mr. Quincy eminently among
them, regarded the political element of slavery as full of
dangers to the future of the nation, these opinions had worked
no personal and social alienation between Northern and
Southern men, such as has since taken place. … There was,
therefore, quite disposition enough to arrange this matter in
the way the most satisfactory to the masters, without so rigid
a regard to the rights of the negroes as, it is to be hoped,
would have been had in later times. Mr. Quincy at first
opposed striking out the forfeiture clause, on the ground that
this was the only way in which the United States could get the
control of the Africans, so as to dispose of them in the
manner most for their own interest. … These views influenced a
majority of the Northern members until the question of the
final passage of the bill approached. At last they came to a
sense of the disgrace which the forfeiture of the negroes to
the government, and the permission to it to sell them as
slaves if it so pleased, would bring upon the nation, and the
whole matter was recommitted to a committee of one from each
State. … This committee reported a bill providing that such
imported negroes should be sent to such States as had
abolished slavery, there to be bound out as apprentices for a
term of years, at the expiration of which they should be free.
This bill produced a scene of great and violent excitement on
the part of the slaveholders. Mr. Early declared that the
people of the South would resist this provision with their
lives! This resistance to a measure which proposed doing all
the slaveholders had demanded for their own safety, to wit,
removing the imported negroes from the slaveholding domain and
providing for them in the Free States, showed that their
purpose was, at least in part, to have the negroes sold as
slaves to themselves. This object they did virtually gain at
last, as the final settlement was by a bill originating in the
Senate, providing that, though neither importer nor purchaser
should have a title to such negroes, still the negroes should
be subject to any regulation for their disposal that should be
made by the States into which they might be brought. The
design of the slaveholding party to make the United States
recognize the rightfulness of property in man was thus
avoided, but it was at the cost of leaving the imported
Africans to the tender mercies of the Slave States. The fact
that the slaveholders were greatly incensed at the result, and
regarded it as an injury and an affront, does not make this
disposition of these unfortunates any the less discreditable
to Congress or the nation."
E. Quincy,
Life of Josiah Quincy,
chapter 5.
See, also, SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1792-1807.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1808.
The effects of the Embargo.
"The dread of war, radical in the Republican theory, sprang
not so much from the supposed waste of life or resources as
from the retroactive effects which war must exert upon the
form of government; but the experience of a few months showed
that the embargo as a system was rapidly leading to the same
effects. … Personal liberties and rights of property were more
directly curtailed in the United States by embargo than in
Great Britain by centuries of almost continuous foreign war. …
While the constitutional cost of the two systems was not
altogether unlike, the economical cost was a point not easily
settled. No one could say what might be the financial expense
of embargo as compared with war. Yet Jefferson himself in the
end admitted that the embargo had no claim to respect as an
economical measure. … As the order was carried along the
seacoast, every artisan dropped his tools, every merchant
closed his doors, every ship was dismantled. American
produce—wheat, timber, cotton, tobacco, rice—dropped in value
or became unsalable; every imported article rose in price;
wages stopped; swarms of debtors became bankrupt; thousands of
sailors hung idle round the wharves trying to find employment
on coasters, and escape to the West Indies or Nova Scotia. A
reign of idleness began; and the men who were not already
ruined felt that their ruin was only a matter of time. The
British traveller, Lambert, who visited New York in 1808,
described it as resembling a place ravaged by pestilence:—'The
port indeed was full of shipping, but they were dismantled and
laid up; their decks were cleared, their hatches fastened
down, and scarcely a sailor was to be found on board. Not a
box, bale, cask, barrel, or package was to be seen upon the
wharves.' … In New England, where the struggle of existence
was keenest, the embargo struck like a thunderbolt, and
society for a moment thought itself at an end.
{3337}
Foreign commerce and shipping were the life of the people,
—the ocean, as Pickering said, was their farm. The outcry of
suffering interests became every day more violent, as the
public learned that this paralysis was not a matter of weeks,
but of months or years. … The belief that Jefferson, sold to
France, wished to destroy American commerce and to strike a
deadly blow at New and Old England at once, maddened the
sensitive temper of the people. Immense losses, sweeping away
their savings and spreading bankruptcy through every village,
gave ample cause for their complaints. Yet in truth, New
England was better able to defy the embargo than she was
willing to suppose. She lost nothing except profits which the
belligerents had in any case confiscated; her timber would not
harm for keeping, and her fish were safe in the ocean. The
embargo gave her almost a monopoly of the American market for
domestic manufactures; no part of the country was so well
situated or so well equipped for smuggling. … The growers of
wheat and live stock in the Middle States were more hardly
treated. Their wheat, reduced in value from two dollars to
seventy-five cents a bushel, became practically unsalable. …
The manufacturers of Pennsylvania could not but feel the
stimulus of the new demand; so violent a system of protection
was never applied to them before or since. Probably for that
reason the embargo was not so unpopular in Pennsylvania as
elsewhere, and Jefferson had nothing to fear from political
revolution in this calm and plodding community. The true
burden of the embargo fell on the Southern States, but most
severely upon the great State of Virginia. Slowly decaying,
but still half patriarchal, Virginia society could neither
economize nor liquidate. Tobacco was worthless; but 400,000
negro slaves must be clothed and fed, great establishments
must be kept up, the social scale of living could not be
reduced, and even could not clear a large landed estate
without creating new encumbrances in a country bankruptcy
where land and negroes were the only forms of property on
which money could be raised. Stay-laws were tried, but served
only to prolong the agony. With astonishing rapidity Virginia
succumbed to ruin, while continuing to support the system that
was draining her strength."
H. Adams,
History of the United States:
Second Administration of Jefferson,
volume 2, chapter 12.
"'Our passion,' said Jefferson, 'is peace.' He not only
recoiled as a philanthropist from bloodshed, but as a
politician he with reason dreaded military propensities and
sabre sway. Such preparations for war as he could be induced
to make were scrupulously defensive, and his fleet of
gun-boats for the protection of the coast to be launched when
the invader should appear excited a smile. Alone among all
statesmen he tried to make war without bloodshed by means of
an embargo on trade. … It is not the highest of his titles to
fame in the eyes of his countrymen, but it may be not the
lowest in the court of humanity, that he sacrificed his
popularity in the attempt to find a bloodless substitute for
war. His memory recovered from the shock and his reign over
American opinion endured."
Goldwin Smith,
The United States:
An outline of Political History, 1492-1871,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
H. A. Hill,
Trade and Commerce of Boston, 1780-1880
(Memorial History of Boston,
volume 4, part 2, chapter 8).
E. Quincy,
Life of Josiah Quincy,
chapters 6-7.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1808.
Sixth Presidential Election.
Jefferson succeeded by Madison.
"In anticipation of Jefferson's retirement there had been … no
little dispute and lively canvassing as to the next incumbency
of the presidential chair. … Upon Madison, it was generally
considered that Jefferson had fixed his personal preference. …
But Madison had many political enemies in the Republican ranks
among Virginians themselves. … Monroe was the growing
favorite. Republicans in Congress, who, from one cause or
another, had become disaffected to the Secretary of State,
made their new choice manifest. The Quids [see QUIDS], having
courted Monroe by letter when he was abroad, crowded about him
when he passed through Washington on his way home, just as the
Embargo became a law. … Monroe hesitated, unwilling to make a
breach; and rather than hazard the Republican cause, or the
future prospects of their favorite, his more temperate friends
took him off the list of candidates, so that at the usual
Congressional caucus, held at the capital, Madison was
nominated almost unanimously for President, and George Clinton
for Vice-President. But out of 139 Republican Senators and
Representatives only 89 were present at this caucus, some
being sick or absent from the city, and others keeping away
because dissatisfied. Clinton had been a disappointed
candidate, as well as Monroe, for the highest honors. … His
ambition was pursued beyond the caucus, notwithstanding his
renomination as Vice-President, until the friends of Madison,
who had profited by the diversion among competitors,
threatened to drop Clinton from the regular ticket unless he
relinquished his pretensions to a higher place than that
already assigned him. Meantime the schismatic Republicans had
united in protesting to the country against Congressional
dictation, at the same time pronouncing that the caucus which
had nominated Madison was irregularly held. This open letter
was signed by 17 Republican members of Congress. …
Unfortunately for their influence in the canvass, however,
they could not agree as to whether Monroe or Clinton should
head the ticket. Objectionable, moreover, as the Congressional
caucus might be, many more Presidential terms elapsed before
other nominating machinery superseded it. National delegates,
the national congress or convention of a party, was an idea
too huge as yet for American politics to grasp in these days
of plain frugality. … Harassed with foes within and without,
with dissensions among the friends of rival candidates for the
succession, with an odious and profitless measure to execute,
against which citizens employed both cunning and force, it
seemed, at one time, as if the administration party would go
down in the fall elections. But Jefferson's wonderful
popularity and the buoyancy of Republican principles carried
the day. The regular Presidential ticket prevailed, not
without a diminished majority."
J. Schouler,
History of the United States,
chapter 6, section 2 (volume 2).
James Madison, Democratic Republican, was elected, receiving
122 votes in the Electoral College; George Clinton, of the
same party, receiving 6, and Charles C. Pinckney, Federalist,
47. George Clinton was chosen Vice President.
{3338}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1808-1810.
Substitution of Non-intercourse for Embargo.
Delusive conduct of Napoleon.
"All through the year 1808 and the first two months of 1809,
the heavy hand of the embargo was laid on American commerce.
The close of Jefferson's administration was signalized by an
important change in the policy of the American Government.
Almost the last act which Jefferson performed as President was
to sign the new law which repealed the embargo, and
substituted non-intercourse—a law which instead of universal
prohibition of trade, merely prohibited commerce with Great
Britain and with the countries under French control. The
statute further authorized the President to suspend this
prohibition as to either Great Britain or France as soon as
one or the other should desist from violating neutral rights.
An excuse for renewing commercial relations was not long
delayed. On April 21, 1809, immediately upon the rather
unexpected conclusion of a liberal and satisfactory diplomatic
arrangement with Erskine, the British minister in Washington,
the non-intercourse act was suspended as to Great Britain; and
foreign trade, long dormant, suddenly sprang into excessive
activity. This happy truce was short-lived. Erskine had
effected his arrangement by a deliberate and almost defiant
disregard of Canning's instructions; and his acts were
promptly disavowed by his government. His recall was followed
by a renewal of non-intercourse under a presidential
proclamation of August 9, 1809. But notwithstanding the
disavowal of Erskine, the British Government had made an
apparent concession to the United States by the adoption of
new orders in council which revoked the stringent prohibitions
of the orders of 1807, and substituted a paper blockade of all
ports and places under the government of France—a distinction
which, on the whole, was perhaps without any important
difference. France, on the other hand, entered upon a course
of further aggressions. Louis Bonaparte was driven from his
kingdom of Holland because he refused to attack neutral
commerce, and all American ships found lying at Amsterdam were
seized. Finally, by the decree of Rambouillet, every American
ship found in any French port was confiscated and ordered
sold. England and the United States thus seemed for the moment
to be slowly drawing together in the presence of a common
enemy, when suddenly the whole situation of affairs was
changed by the formal announcement on August 5, 1810, of the
Emperor's intended revocation of the decrees of Berlin and
Milan, such revocation to take place on the first day of the
following November, provided the British Government revoked
their orders in council, or (and this was the important
provision) the United States caused their rights to be
respected. This promise, as Napoleon had privately pointed out
a few days before, committed him to nothing; but it was
accepted with all seriousness on the part of the United
States. In reliance upon the imperial word, commercial
intercourse with Great Britain—which had been once more
resumed in May, 1810—was for the third time suspended. This,
it was thought, was 'causing American rights to be respected';
and although the condemnation of American ships went on
without a pause in every continental port, the Government of
the United States clung with the strongest pertinacity to the
belief that Napoleon's declarations were sincere. The
practical effect of all this was to bar the door against any
possible settlement with Great Britain. Commerce was now
permanently suspended; there was a long list of grievances to
be redressed, and negotiation was exhausted."
G. L. Rives, editor,
Selections from the Correspondence of Thomas Barclay,
chapter 6.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810.
The Third Census.
Total population, 7,215,791 (being an increase of nearly 36½
per cent. over the population shown in 1800), classed and
distributed as follows:
North.
White. Free black. Slave.
Connecticut. 255,279 6,453 310
Illinois. 11,501 613 168
Indiana. 23,890 393 237
Maine. 227,736 969 0
Massachusetts. 465,303 6,737 0
Michigan. 4,618 120 24
New Hampshire. 213,390 970 0
New Jersey. 226,861 7,843 10,851
New York. 918,699 25,333 15,017
Ohio. 228,861 1,899 0
Pennsylvania. 786,804 22,492 795
Rhode Island. 73,314 3,609 108
Vermont. 216,963 750 0
------- ------ ------
Total 3,653,219 78,181 27,510
South.
White. Free black. Slave.
Delaware. 55,361 13,136 4,177
District of Columbia. 16,079 2,549 5,395
Georgia. 145,414 1,801 105,218
Kentucky. 324,237 1,713 80,561
Louisiana. 34,311 7,585 34,660
Maryland. 235,117 33,927 111,502
Mississippi. 23,024 240 17,088
Missouri. 17,227 607 3,011
North Carolina. 376,410 10,266 168,824
South Carolina. 214,196 4,554 196,365
Tennessee. 215,875 1,317 44,535
Virginia. 551,534 30,570 392,518
------- ------- -------
2,208,785 108,265 1,163,854
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1812.
Continued provocation from England and France.
The "War of 1812" against Great Britain declared.
"Congress, on May 1, 1810, passed an act providing that
commercial non-intercourse with the belligerent powers should
cease with the end of the session, only armed ships being
excluded from American ports; and further, that, in case
either of them should recall its obnoxious orders or decrees,
the President should announce the fact by proclamation, and if
the other did not do the same within three months, the
non-intercourse act should be revived against that one,—a
measure adopted only because Congress, in its helplessness,
did not know what else to do. The conduct of France had
meanwhile been no less offensive than that of Great Britain.
On all sorts of pretexts American ships were seized in the
harbors and waters controlled by French power. A spirited
remonstrance on the part of Armstrong, the American Minister,
was answered by the issue of the Rambouillet Decree in May,
1810, ordering the sale of American vessels and cargoes
seized, and directing like confiscation of all American
vessels entering any ports under the control of France.
{3339}
This decree was designed to stop the surreptitious trade that
was still being carried on between England and the continent
in American bottoms. When it failed in accomplishing that end,
Napoleon instructed his Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Champagny, to inform the American Minister that the Berlin and
Milan Decrees were revoked, and would cease to have effect on
November 1, 1810, if the English would revoke their Orders in
Council, and recall their new principles of blockade, or if
the United States would 'cause their rights to be respected by
the English,'—in the first place restore the non-intercourse
act as to Great Britain. … The British government, being
notified of this by the American Minister, declared on
September 29 that Great Britain would recall the Orders in
Council when the revocation of the French decrees should have
actually taken effect, and the commerce of neutrals should
have been restored. … Madison, … leaning toward France, as was
traditional with the Republican party, and glad to grasp even
at the semblance of an advantage, chose to regard the
withdrawal of the Berlin and Milan Decrees as actual and done
in good faith, and announced it as a matter of fact on
November 1, 1810. French armed ships were no longer excluded
from American ports. On February 2, 1811, the non-importation
act was revived as to Great Britain. In May the British Court
of Admiralty delivered an opinion that no evidence existed of
the withdrawal of the Berlin and Milan Decrees, which resulted
in the condemnation of a number of American vessels and their
cargoes. Additional irritation was caused by the capture, off
Sandy Hook, of an American vessel bound to France, by some
fresh cases of search and impressment, and by an encounter
between the American frigate President and the British sloop
Little Belt, which fired into one another, the British vessel
suffering most. But was American commerce safe in French
ports? By no means. … Outrages on American ships by French
men-of-war and privateers went on as before, … The pretended
French concession was, therefore, a mere farce. Truly, there
were American grievances enough. Over 900 American ships had
been seized by the British, and more than 550 by the French. …
By both belligerents the United States had been kicked and
cuffed like a mere interloper among the nations of the earth,
who had no rights entitled to respectful consideration. Their
insolence seemed to have been increased by the irresolution of
the American government, the distraction of counsel in
Congress, and the division of sentiment among the people. …
But … young Republican leaders came to the front to interpret
the 'national spirit and expectation.' They totally eclipsed
the old chiefs by their dash and brilliancy. Foremost among
them stood Henry Clay; then John C. Calhoun, William Lowndes,
Felix Grundy, Langdon Cheves, and others. They believed that,
if the American Republic was to maintain anything like the
dignity of an independent power, and to preserve, or rather,
regain, the respect of mankind in any degree,—ay, its
self-respect,—it must cease to submit to humiliation and
contemptuous treatment; it must fight,—fight somebody who had
wronged or insulted it. The Republicans having always a tender
side for France, and the fiction of French concessions being
accepted, the theory of the war party was that, of the two
belligerents, England had more insolently maltreated the
United States. Rumors were spread that an Indian war then
going on, and resulting in the battle of Tippecanoe on
November 7, 1811, was owing to English intrigues. Adding this
to the old Revolutionary reminiscences of British oppression,
it was not unnatural that the national wrath should generally
turn against Great Britain. … Not only the regular army was
increased, but the President was authorized to accept and
employ 50,000 volunteers. Then a bill was introduced providing
for the building of ten new frigates. … The war spirit in the
country gradually rose, and manifested itself noisily in
public meetings, passing resolutions, and memorializing
Congress. It was increased in intensity by a sensational
'exposure,' a batch of papers laid before Congress by the
President in March, 1812. They had been sold to the government
by John Henry, an Irish adventurer, and disclosed a
confidential mission to New England, undertaken by Henry in
1809 at the request of Sir James Craig, the governor of
Canada, to encourage a disunion movement in the Eastern
States. This was the story. Whatever its foundation, it was
believed, and greatly increased popular excitement." On the
4th of April the President signed a bill laying an embargo on
commerce with Great Britain for ninety days. "All over the
country the embargo was understood as meaning an immediate
preparation for war. … In May, 1812, President Madison was
nominated for reelection by the congressional caucus. It has
been said that he was dragooned into the war policy by Clay
and his followers with the threat that, unless he yielded to
their views, another candidate for the presidency would be
chosen. This Clay denied, and there was no evidence to
discredit his denial. Madison was simply swept into the
current by the impetuosity of Young America. … On June 1 the
President's war message came. On June 18 a bill in accordance
with it, which had passed both Houses, was signed by the
President, who proclaimed hostilities the next day. Thus Young
America, led by Henry Clay, carried their point. But there was
something disquieting in their victory. The majority they
commanded in Congress was not so large as a majority for a
declaration of war should be. In the House, Pennsylvania and
the states south and west of it gave 62 votes for the war, and
32 against it; the states north and east of Pennsylvania gave
17 yeas and 32 nays,—in all 79 for and 49 against war. This
showed a difference of sentiment according to geographical
divisions. Not even all the Republicans were in favor of war.
… Nor were the United States in any sense well prepared for a
war with a first-class power."
C. Schurz,
Life of Henry Clay,
volume 1, chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
S. Perkins,
History of the Late War,
chapters 1-2.
C. J. Ingersoll,
Historical Sketch of the Second War between
the United States and Great Britain,
volume 1, chapter 1.
E. Quincy,
Life of Josiah Quincy,
chapters 9-12.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.
Refusal to re-charter the Bank of the United States.
See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1791-1816.
{3340}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.
General Harrison's campaign against Tecumseh and his league.
The Battle of Tippecanoe.
"During the interval between the Tripolitan war and the war of
1812, one noticeable campaign was made against the Indians.
The operation took place in 1811, under General William H.
Harrison, governor of Indiana Territory, and was directed
against the Shawnees and other tribes which adhered to
Tecumseh. This chief, with his brother, known as 'the
Prophet,' had been engaged since 1806 in planning a species of
crusade against the whites, and had acquired great influence
among the northwestern Indians. For the previous two years
Harrison's suspicions had been aroused by reports of
Tecumseh's intrigues, and attempts had been made from time to
time to negotiate with him, but without satisfactory results.
In the summer of 1811 it was decided to strike a decisive blow
at the Indians, and in the autumn Harrison, with a regiment of
regulars under Colonel Boyd, and a force of militia, marched
upon Tecumseh's town, situated on the Tippecanoe River. On the
7th of November the Indians, in Tecumseh's absence, attempted
to surprise Harrison's camp, but in the battle which followed
they were driven off, and presently abandoned their town,
which Harrison burned. The invading force then retired. The
importance of the expedition was largely due to the military
reputation which Harrison acquired by it."
J. R. Soley,
The Wars of the United States
(Narrative and Critical History of the United States,
volume 7, chapter 6).
ALSO IN:
American State Papers: Indian Affairs,
volume 1, page 776.
E. Eggleston and L. E. Seelye,
Tecumseh,
chapters 12-23.
H. Adams,
History of the United States:
First Administration of Madison,
volume 2, chapters 4-5.
J. B. Dillon,
History of Indiana,
chapters 35-38.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (April).
Admission of Louisiana into the Union.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1812.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (June-October).
Rioting at Baltimore.
The opening of the war and the unreadiness of the nation for it.
Hull's disastrous campaign and surrender, at Detroit.
"It was perhaps characteristic of the conduct of the war, that
the first blood spilled should be American blood, shed by
Americans. … In the night of June 22d, three days after the
proclamation of war, a mob in Baltimore sacked the office of
the 'Federal Republican,' edited by Alexander Hanson, because
he had opposed the war policy. The mob also attacked the
residences of several prominent Federalists, and burned one of
them. Vessels in the harbor, too, were visited and plundered.
About a month later Hanson resumed the publication of his
paper, and in the night of July 26th the mob gathered again."
This time they were resisted and one was killed; whereupon the
authorities seized Hanson and his friends and lodged them in
jail. "The rioters, thus encouraged by those whose business it
was to punish them, attacked the jail the next night, murdered
General Lingan [one of Hanson's defenders], injured General
[Henry] Lee so that he was a cripple for the rest of his life,
and beat several of the other victims and subjected them to
torture. The leaders of the mob were brought to trial, but
were acquitted! In this state of affairs, the war party in the
country being but little stronger than the peace party, the
youngest and almost the weakest of civilized nations went to
war with one of the oldest and most powerful. The regular army
of the United States numbered only 6,000 men; but Congress had
passed an act authorizing its increase to 25,000, and in
addition to this the President was empowered to call for
50,000 volunteers, and to use the militia to the extent of
100,000. Henry Dearborn, of Massachusetts, was made a
major-general and appointed to command the land forces.
Against the thousand vessels and 144,000 sailors of the
British navy, the Americans had 20 war-ships and a few
gunboats, the whole carrying about 300 guns. But these
figures, taken alone, are deceptive; since a very large part
of the British force was engaged in the European wars, and the
practical question was, what force the United States could
bring against so much as England could spare for operations on
the high seas and on this side of the Atlantic. In that
comparison, the discrepancy was not so great, and the United
States had an enormous element of strength in her fine
merchant marine. Her commerce being temporarily suspended to a
large degree, there was an abundance both of ships and
sailors, from which to build up a navy and fit out a fleet of
privateers. Indeed, privateering was the business that now
offered the largest prizes to mariners and ship-owners. … War
with Great Britain being determined upon, the plan of campaign
that first and most strongly presented itself to the
Administration was the conquest of the British provinces on
our northern border. … In planning for the invasion of Canada,
the Administration counted largely upon a supposed readiness
of the Canadians to throw off their allegiance to Great
Britain and join with the United States. Such expectations
have almost never been realized, and in this instance they
were completely disappointed. In the preceding February,
William Hull, Governor of the Territory of Michigan, who had
rendered distinguished service in the Revolution, had been
made a brigadier-general and placed in command of the forces
in Ohio, with orders to march them to Detroit, to protect the
Territory against the Indians, who were becoming troublesome.
In June he was in command of about 2,000 men, in northern
Ohio, moving slowly through the wilderness. On the day when
war was declared, June 18th, the Secretary of War wrote him
two letters. The first, in which the declaration was not
mentioned, was despatched by a special messenger, and reached
General Hull on the 24th. The other informed him of the
declaration of war, but was sent by mail to Cleveland, there
to take its chance of reaching the General by whatever
conveyance might be found. The consequence was, that he did
not receive it till the 2d of July. But every British
commander in Canada learned the news several days earlier.
Hull arrived at Detroit on the 5th of July and set about
organizing his forces. On the 9th he received from the War
Department orders to begin the invasion of Canada by taking
possession of Malden, 15 miles below Detroit, on the other
side of the river, if he thought he could do so with safety to
his own posts. He crossed on the 12th, and issued a
proclamation to the Canadians." He found the enemy too
strongly fortified at Malden to be prudently assaulted with
raw troops and without artillery. "So it was decided to defer
the attack, and in a few days came the news that, on the
declaration of war, a force of over 600—British and
Indians—had promptly moved against the American post at
Michilimackinac—on the rocky little island of Mackinaw,
commanding the strait between Lake Huron and Lake Michigan—and
the garrison of 61 officers and men capitulated on the 16th of
July.
{3341}
This disaster to the Americans roused the Indians to renewed
hostility against them, while it proportionately disheartened
Hull, and seems to have been the first step in the breaking
down of his courage. After a few skirmishes, he recrossed to
Detroit on the 7th of August. Meanwhile the British Colonel
Proctor had arrived at Malden with reënforcements, and on
Hull's withdrawal to Detroit he threw a force across the river
to intercept his supplies. This force consisted of a small
number of British regulars and a considerable number of
Indians commanded by the famous Tecumseh." Two considerable
engagements occurred between this force and detachments sent
out to meet an expected supply train. In the first, the
Americans were badly beaten; in the second, they drove the
enemy to their boats with heavy loss; but the supply train was
not secured. "During this gloomy state of things at Detroit, a
bloody affair took place on ground that is now within the city
of Chicago. Fort Dearborn stood at the mouth of Chicago River,
and was occupied by a garrison of about 50 soldiers, with
several families. Captain Nathan Heald, commanding the post,
had been ordered by General Hull to abandon it and remove his
force to Detroit. "To conciliate the neighboring Indians who
professed friendliness, he promised to give them all the
property in the fort which he could not carry; but before
making the delivery to them he foolishly destroyed all the
arms, the gunpowder and the liquors. Enraged by this
proceeding, which they considered a trick, the savages pursued
Captain Heald's small party, waylaid them among the Sand-hills
on the lake shore, and massacred the greater part, twelve
children included. The scalps which they took were sold to
Colonel Proctor, "who had offered a premium for American
scalps." The same day on which this occurred, August 15th,
"the British General Isaac Brock, who had arrived at Malden a
few days before and assumed command there, formally demanded
the surrender of Detroit. This demand included a plain threat
of massacre in case of refusal. Said Brock in his letter: 'It
is far from my intention to join in a war of extermination;
but you must be aware that the numerous bodies of Indians who
have attached themselves to my troops will be beyond my
control the moment the contest commences.' … Brock's force,
according to his own testimony, numbered 1,330 men, including
600 Indians, and he had also two ships of war. Hull had
present for duty about 1,000 men. Brock sent a large body of
Indians across the river that night, at a point five miles
below the fort, and early in the morning crossed with the
remainder of his troops, and at once marched on the place." On
the approach of the attacking force Hull offered to surrender.
"The articles of capitulation were drawn up, and the American
general surrendered, not merely the fort and its garrison, but
the whole Territory of Michigan, of which he was Governor. …
Hull's officers were incensed at his action, and he was
subsequently court-martialled, convicted of cowardice, and
condemned to death; but the President pardoned him, in
consideration of his age and his services in the Revolution. …
Subsequent investigations, if they do not exonerate General
Hull, have at least greatly modified the blame attached to
him."
R. Johnson,
History of the War of 1812-15,
chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
J. F. Clarke,
History of the Campaign of 1812 and
Surrender of the Post at Detroit.
B. J. Lossing,
Hull's Surrender
(Potter's American Monthly, August, 1875).
F. S. Drake,
Memorials of the Massachusetts Society of the Cincinnati,
pages 341-354.
S. C. Clark,
Hull's Surrender at Detroit
(Magazine of American History, volume 27).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.
The opposition of the Federalists to the war.
"Unfortunately for the Federalists, while they were wholly
right in many of their criticisms on the manner in which the
war came about, they put themselves in the wrong as to its
main feature. We can now see that in their just wrath against
Napoleon they would have let the nation remain in a position
of perpetual childhood and subordination before England. No
doubt there were various points at issue in the impending
contest, but the most important one, and the only one that
remained in dispute all through the war, was that of the right
of search and impressment. … It must be understood that this
was not a question of reclaiming deserters from the British
navy, for the seamen in question had very rarely belonged to
it. There existed in England at that time an outrage on
civilization, now abandoned, called impressment, by which any
sailor and many who were not sailors could be seized and
compelled to serve in the navy. The horrors of the
'press-gang,' as exhibited in the sea-side towns of England,
have formed the theme of many novels. It was bad enough at
home, but when applied on board the vessels of a nation with
which England was at peace, it became one of those outrages
which only proceed from the strong to the weak, and are never
reciprocated. Lord Collingwood said well, in one of his
letters, that England would not submit to such an aggression
for an hour. Merely to yield to visitation for such a purpose
was a confession of national weakness; but the actual case was
far worse than this. … We have … Cobbett's statement of the
consequences. 'Great numbers of Americans have been
impressed,' he adds, 'and are now in our navy. … That many of
these men have died on board our ships, that many have been
worn out in the service, there is no doubt.' … In 1806 the
merchants of Boston had called upon the general government to
'assert our rights and support the dignity of the United
States.' … Yet it shows the height of party feeling that when,
in 1812, Mr. Madison's government finally went to war for
these very rights, the measure met with the bitterest
opposition from the whole Federalist party, and from the
commercial States generally. A good type of the Federalist
opposition on this particular point is to be found in the
pamphlets of John Lowell. John Lowell was the son of the
eminent Massachusetts judge of that name; he was a
well-educated lawyer, who was president of the Massachusetts
Agricultural Society, and wrote under the name of 'A New
England Farmer.' In spite of the protests offered half a dozen
years before by his own neighbors, he declared the whole
outcry against impressment to be a device of Mr. Madison's
party. … He argued unflinchingly for the English right of
search, called it a 'consecrated' right, maintained that the
allegiance of British subjects was perpetual, and that no
residence in a foreign country could absolve them. …
{3342}
While such a man, with a large party behind him, took this
position, it must simply be said that the American republic
had not yet asserted itself to be a nation. Soon after the
Revolution, when some one spoke of that contest to Franklin as
the war for independence, he said, 'Say rather the war of the
Revolution; the war for independence is yet to be fought.' The
war of 1812 was just the contest he described. To this
excitement directed against the war, the pulpit very largely
contributed, the chief lever applied by the Federalist clergy
being found in the atrocities of Napoleon. … The Federalist
leaders took distinctly the ground that they should refuse to
obey a conscription law to raise troops for the conquest of
Canada; and when that very questionable measure failed by one
vote in the Senate, the nation may have escaped a serious
outbreak. … It might, indeed, have been far more dangerous
than the Hartford Convention of 1814 [see UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER)], which was, after all, only a
peaceable meeting of some two dozen men, with George Cabot at
their head—men of whom very few had even a covert purpose of
dissolving the Union, but who were driven to something very
near desperation by the prostration of their commerce and the
defencelessness of their coast."
T. W. Higginson,
Larger History of the United States,
chapter 15.
ALSO IN:
H. von Holst,
Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
volume 1, chapter 6.
H. C. Lodge,
Life and Letters of George Cabot,
chapters 11-12.
E. Quincy,
Life of Josiah Quincy,
chapters 11-14.
See, also, BLUE-LIGHT FEDERALISTS.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (September-November).
The opening of the war on the New York frontier.
The Battle of Queenstown Heights.
"To put Dearborn [who commanded in the northern department] in
a condition to act with effect, Governor Tompkins [of the
state of New York] made the greatest efforts to get out the
New York quota of militia. The Democratic Legislature of
Vermont voted to add to the pay of their militia in service as
much as was paid by the United States. At the same time they
passed a stringent drafting law, and offered $30 bounty to
volunteers. By the co-operating exertions of these states and
of the war department, some 3,000 regulars and 2,000 militia
were presently assembled on Lake Champlain, under Dearborn's
immediate command. Another force of 2,000 militia was
stationed at different points along the south bank of the St.
Lawrence, their left resting on Sackett's Harbor. A third army
was collected along the Niagara River, from Fort Niagara to
Buffalo, then a village of a thousand or two inhabitants, in
the midst of a newly-settled district. This latter force of
nearly 6,000 men, half regulars and volunteers and half
militia, was under the immediate command of Major-general Van
Rensselaer, a Federalist. … The first skirmishes on the New
York frontier grew out of attempts, not unsuccessful, made
principally from Ogdensburg, a new but much the largest
village on the American side of the St. Lawrence, to intercept
the British supplies proceeding upward in boats. The militia
officer in command at Ogdensburg was General Jacob Brown. A
Pennsylvanian by birth, a Quaker by education, while employed
as a teacher in the city of New York, some newspaper essays of
his had attracted the attention of Alexander Hamilton, to
whom, during the quasi war of '98, he became military
secretary. Removing afterward to the new settlements of
Northwestern New York, his enterprise had founded the
flourishing village of Brownsville, not far from Sackett's
Harbor. … His success in repulsing a British force of 700 men,
which attempted to cross from Prescott to attack Ogdensburg,
laid the foundation of a military reputation which soon placed
him at the head of the American army. There had been built on
Lake Ontario, out of the gun-boat appropriations, but by a
fortunate improvement upon Jefferson's model, a sloop of war
of light draft, mounting 16 guns. This vessel, called the
Oneida, just before the breaking out of the war had been
furnished with a regular-bred commander and crew. She was
attacked shortly after at Sackett's Harbor by five British
vessels, three of them larger than herself, but manned only by
lake watermen. By landing part of her guns, and establishing a
battery on shore, she succeeded, however, in beating them off.
Hull's failure having shown how important was the control of
the lakes, a judicious selection was made of Captain Chauncey,
hitherto at the head of the New York Navy Yard, to take
command on those waters. Along with Henry Eckford as naval
constructor, and soon followed by ship-carpenters, naval
stores, guns, and presently by parties of seamen, he was sent
to Sackett's Harbor [September, 1812], then held by a garrison
of 200 regulars. That newly-settled region could supply
nothing but timber; every thing else had to be transported
from Albany at vast expense. … A 24-gun ship was at once
commenced; for immediate use, Chauncey purchased six of the
small schooners employed in the then infant commerce of the
lake, which, though very ill adapted for war, he armed with
four guns each. With these and the Oneida he put out on the
lake, and soon [November 8] drove the British ships into
Kingston. … While thus employed, Chauncey had sent Lieutenant
Elliot to Buffalo, with a party of seamen, to make
arrangements for a force on the upper lakes. Elliot, soon
after his arrival, succeeded in cutting out [October 9] from
under the guns of Fort Erie, nearly Opposite Buffalo, two
British vessels just arrived from Detroit. One, the late
Adams, which the British had armed and equipped, grounded, and
it became necessary to destroy her. The other, the Caledonia,
of two guns, was brought off, and became the nucleus of the
naval force of Lake Erie. Elliot also purchased several small
schooners lying in the Niagara River; but they, as well as the
Caledonia, lay blockaded at Black Rock [now a part of the city
of Buffalo], the passage into the lake being commanded by the
guns of Fort Erie. The troops along the Niagara frontier,
highly excited by Elliot's exploit, demanded to be led against
the enemy; and, under the idea that the British village of
Queenstown, at the foot of the falls furnish comfortable winter quarters for a part of his troops,
Van Rensselaer resolved to attack it."
R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
2d series, chapter 25 (volume 3).
{3343}
The Niagara River, 35 miles long, which conducts the waters of
the upper lakes through Erie into Ontario, constituted an
important military frontier in such a war; its banks sparsely
settled, and the crossing a narrow one. Below the roaring
cataracts had assembled another little army, supplied in great
measure by regiments of the New York quota, Major-General Van
Rensselaer, of the militia of that State, a prominent
Federalist, being in command. Hull's sudden surrender left
Brock free to confront this second adversary with a moderate
force from the Canada side, not without feeling uncertain as
to where the American blow would be struck. By October Van
Rensselaer had 6,000 men, half of them regulars; and, yielding
to the impatience of his volunteers and the public press, he
gave orders to cross the river from Lewiston to Queenston.
High bluffs arose on either side. There were not boats enough
provided to carry more than half the advance party at a time.
Too much reliance was placed upon militia, while regulars won
the laurels. Wool, a young captain, and Lieutenant-Colonel
Scott did gallant work on Queenston Heights; and General
Brock, the conqueror of Detroit, fell mortally wounded; but
reinforcements crossed too slowly, and with the green militia
dreading death, many of the reserve pleading legal exemption
from service in an enemy's country, their deserted comrades on
the Canada side, unable to return, were forced to surrender.
Van Rensselaer, whose advance had been premature, resigned in
disgust, leaving a less capable but more pretentious officer,
of Virginia birth, General Alexander Smyth, to succeed him.
Smyth had a gift of windy composition, which fortunately,
imposed upon the inhabitants of Western New York just long
enough to check despondency and restore a glow to the
recruiting service. 'Come on, my heroes,' was his cry, 'and

when you attack the enemy's batteries, let your rallying word
be: "The cannon lost at Detroit, or death!". All this inkshed
promised an exploit for invading Canada from the upper end of
the Niagara, between Fort Erie and Chippewa. By the 27th of
November Smyth had concentrated at Black Rock, near Buffalo, a
fair army, 4,500 troops, comprising, in addition to the
regulars, volunteer regiments from Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
New York; the last under the command of General Porter, the
representative in Congress, whose report, twelve months
before, had given the first loud note of war. The big moment
approached; but, notwithstanding the sonorous promise of
'memorable to-morrows,' and an embarkation to the music of
'Yankee Doodle,' one or two shivering attempts were made to
land on the opposite shore, and then the volunteers were
dismissed to their homes, and regulars ordered into
winter-quarters. Disorderly scenes ensued. Our insubordinate
and mortified soldiers discharged their muskets in all
directions. Porter having openly charged Smyth with cowardice,
the two crossed to Grand Island to fight a duel, and then
shook hands. … But the country could not be reconciled to such
generalship, and Smyth was presently cashiered."
J. Schouler,
History of the United States,
volume 2, chapter 8, section 2.
ALSO IN:
S. Van Rensselaer,
Narrative of the Affair of Queenstown.
J. Symons,
The Battle of Queenstown Heights.
General W. Scott,
Memoirs, by himself,
volume 1, chapter 6.
W. H. Merritt,
Journal during the War of 1812.
H. Adams,
History of the United States:
First Administration of Madison,
volume 2, chapter 16.
F. B. Tupper,
Life and Correspondence of Major-General Sir Isaac Brock,
chapters 13-14.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.
Seventh Presidential Election.
James Madison was re-elected, receiving in the electoral
college 128 votes, against 89 cast for DeWitt Clinton,
Federalist. Elbridge Gerry was elected Vice President.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.
Possession of West Florida taken from the Spaniards.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.
Indifference to the Navy at the beginning of the war.
Its Efficiency and its Early Successes.
"The young leaders of the war party in congress looked to
successes on land and territorial conquest, and had an
indifference to the field which the ocean afforded. And yet
the triumphs of our young fleet in the Revolution, the alarm
which John Paul Jones excited in English homes, and, later,
the brilliant achievements in the Mediterranean, the heroes of
which were still in the prime of their service, might have
inspired better counsel. Madison's cabinet were said to have
without exception opposed the increase and use of our navy;
indeed, somewhat after Jefferson's idea in imposing the
embargo—to save our vessels by laying them up. The advice of
Captains Charles Stewart and William Bainbridge, who happened
to be in Washington at the time of the declaration of war,
determined Madison to bring the navy into active service. One
of the chief causes of the war being the impressment of our
seamen, it seems to-day surprising that their ardor in defense
of 'Free Trade and Sailors' Rights,'—the cry under which our
greatest triumphs were won—should have been either passed by
or deprecated."
J. A. Stevens,
Second War with Great Britain
(Magazine of American History, May-June, 1893).
"Although [the American navy] had never been regarded by the
government with favor, it happened that the three most
essential measures had been adopted to secure its efficiency,—
the ships built for it were the best of their class in the
world, the officers had been carefully selected (200 out of a
total of 500 having been retained under the Peace
Establishment Act), and they had received—at least a large
number of them—in Preble's squadron at Tripoli a training such
as had fallen to the lot of few navies, either before or
since. To these three causes the successes of 1812 were
directly due; and although Commodore Preble died in 1807, the
credit of the later war belongs more to him than to any other
one man. It was not only that he formed many of the individual
officers who won the victories of 1812-15,—for Hull, Decatur,
Bainbridge, Macdonough, Porter, Lawrence, Biddle, Chauncey,
Warrington, Charles Morris, and Stewart were all in his
squadron,—but he created in the navy the professional spirit
or idea, which was the main quality that distinguished it from
the army in the war with Great Britain. At the outbreak of the
war there were 18 vessels in the navy, ranging from 44-gun
frigates to 12-gun brigs. There were also 176 gunboats, on
which a large sum of money had been expended, but which were
of no use whatever. … Immediately after the declaration of
war, the frigates in commission in the home ports, together
with two of the sloops, put to sea as a squadron under
Commodore John Rodgers. They fell in with the English frigate
'Belvidera,' but she got away from them; and after an
ineffectual cruise across the Atlantic, they returned home,
without meeting anything of consequence.
{3344}
Three weeks later, the 'Constitution,' under Captain Hull,
sailed from Annapolis. Soon after leaving the Chesapeake she
came upon a British squadron of one sixty-four and four
frigates, and then ensued the famous three days' chase, in the
course of which, by a marvel of good seamanship and good
discipline, the American frigate escaped. After a short
respite in Boston, Hull set out again, and on the 19th of
August he fought and captured the 'Guerrière,' Captain Dacres,
in an engagement lasting about an hour. The 'Constitution,'
being armed with 24-pounders instead of 18's, threw at a
broadside a weight of shot half as large again as that of the
'Guerrière,' and her crew was numerically superior in a still
greater degree. Nevertheless, the immensely greater
disproportion in the casualties which the 'Constitution'
inflicted and received, and the short time which she took to
do the work, cannot be explained by the difference in force
alone; for the 'Guerrière' had five times as many killed and
wounded as her opponent, and at the close of the engagement
she was a dismasted wreck, while the 'Constitution' had
suffered no injury of importance. The essential point of
difference lay in the practical training and skill of the
crews in gunnery. … In the next action, in October, the sloop
'Wasp,' Captain Jacob Jones, captured the English brig
'Frolic,' of approximately the same force. The relative loss
of English and Americans was again five to one. Both vessels
were soon after taken by a seventy-four. Later in the same
month, another frigate action took place, the 'United States,'
under Decatur, capturing the 'Macedonian.' The advantage of
the Americans in men was about the same as in the first
action, while in guns it was greater. The American casualties
were 13, the English 104. This difference was not due to the
fact that the American guns were 24's and 42's, instead of
18's and 32's, or that the Americans had three more of them in
a broadside; it was really due to the way in which the guns on
both sides were handled. Shortly after this capture, a cruise
in the Pacific was projected for a squadron to be composed of
the 'Constitution,' 'Essex,' and 'Hornet.' The 'Essex' failed
to meet the other vessels at the rendezvous off the coast of
Brazil, and went on the Pacific cruise alone [having great
success]. The 'Constitution,' now commanded by Bainbridge, met
the frigate 'Java,' near Brazil, on the 29th of December. The
antagonists were more nearly matched than in the previous
frigate actions, but the fight, lasting a little over an hour,
resulted in the total defeat and surrender of the 'Java,' with
a loss of 124 to the Americans' 34. The 'Java' was a wreck,
and could not be taken into port, and Bainbridge returned
home. Two months later, February 24, 1813, the 'Hornet,'
commanded by Lawrence, met the 'Peacock' off the Demerara, and
reduced her in fifteen minutes to a sinking condition, while
the 'Hornet's' hull was hardly scratched. The English sloop
sank so quickly that she carried down part of her own crew and
three of the 'Hornet's' who were trying to save them. The
casualties, apart from those drowned, were 5 in the 'Hornet'
and 38 in the 'Peacock.' … The moral effect in England of
these defeats was very great. … In March, 1813, Admiral Sir
John Warren assumed the command of the British squadron on the
American coast. Although rather past his prime, his defects
were more than compensated by the activity of his second in
command, Rear-Admiral Cockburn, who during this summer and the
next kept the coasts of Chesapeake Bay in a continuous state
of alarm by successful raids, in which much valuable property
was destroyed. Among the more important of the actions of 1813
were the capture and destruction (in part) of Havre de Grace,
Md., early in May, and an attack on the village of Hampton,
Va., on the 25th of June. 'Acts of rapine and violence' on the
part of the invading forces characterized the latter attack,
which excited intense indignation throughout the country. … In
the summer of 1813 occurred the first serious reverse of the
navy during the war. On the 1st of June the frigate
'Chesapeake,' Captain James Lawrence, sailed from Boston to
engage the 'Shannon,' which was lying outside, waiting for the
battle. The two ships were nearly matched in guns and men,
what slight difference there was being in favor of the
'Chesapeake'; but the crew of the latter had been recently
shipped and was partly composed of disaffected men, and
Lawrence had had no time to discipline them. The engagement
was short and decisive. Ranging up alongside of the 'Shannon,'
whose crew had been brought to the highest state of efficiency
by Captain Broke their commander, the 'Chesapeake' at the
first fire received a severe injury in the loss of several of
her officers. Falling foul of the 'Shannon' she was
effectually raked, and presently a boarding party, led by
Captain Broke, got possession of her deck. The great mortality
among the officers [including Captain Lawrence, who had
received a mortal wound just before his ship was boarded, and
whose dying appeal, 'Don't give up the ship,' became the
battle cry of the American navy during the remainder of the
war], and the want of discipline in the crew, resulted in a
victory for the boarders. The battle lasted fifteen minutes
only, and the 'Chesapeake' was carried as a prize to Halifax.
During this summer the naval war on the ocean continued with
varying fortunes, two important actions being fought. The brig
'Argus,' Captain Allen, after a successful voyage in the Irish
Sea, in which many prizes were taken and destroyed, was
captured by the English brig 'Pelican,' on the 14th of August.
Early in September the brig 'Enterprise,' commanded by
Lieutenant Burrows, captured the English brig 'Boxer,' near
Portland, Me."
J. R. Soley,
The Wars of the United States
(Narrative and Critical History of the United States,
volume 7, chapter 6).
ALSO IN:
T. Roosevelt,
The Naval War of 1812,
chapters 2-5.
J. F. Cooper,
History of the Navy of the United States,
volume 2, chapters 9-22.
A. S. Mackenzie,
Life of Decatur,
chapters 10-12.
D. D. Porter,
Memoirs of Commander David Porter.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.
Harrison's northwestern campaign.
Winchester's defeat.
Perry's naval victory on Lake Erie.
The Battle of the Thames and death of Tecumseh.
Recovery of Detroit and Michigan.
"Great was the indignation of the West, great the
mortification of our whole people, on learning that, instead
of capturing Upper Canada at the first blow, we had lost our
whole Michigan Territory. The task now was to retake Detroit
under a competent commander. Ohio and Kentucky went on filling
rapidly their quotas, while urging the administration to march
them under Harrison.
{3345}
The President hesitated, doubtful whether Harrison was a man
of sufficient military experience. He proposed that Monroe
should go to the scene, as a volunteer, if not to command; but
Monroe restrained his first military ardor, as was prudent,
and Winchester, of Tennessee, another of the recent
brigadiers, and a revolutionary veteran, was selected. The
selection, however, gave umbrage to the Kentuckians, whose
State government had already made Harrison a brevet
major-general of militia. The hero of Tippecanoe was finally
assigned to the chief command of the Western army, Madison
countermanding his first orders. Harrison's route for Detroit
was by way of Fort Wayne and Fort Defiance to the falls of the
Maumee. But it was late in the fall [October 1812] before the
new military arrangements could be completed; and through a
swampy wilderness, infested as it was with hostile Indians,
the progress of the column was toilsome and discouraging; and,
except for the destruction of a few Indian villages on the
way, the deeds of prowess were reserved for a winter campaign.
… The winter expedition of the Northwest army … [was] retarded
by a disaster which overtook Winchester's command near the
Maumee Rapids, at a little village on the River Raisin. By
Harrison's orders Winchester had started for these Rapids,
whence, having first concentrated troops as if for winter
quarters, the design was that he should advance 50 miles
farther, when weather permitted, cross the frozen Detroit, and
fall suddenly upon Malden. Winchester not only pushed on
incautiously to his first destination, but, with a design more
humane than prudent, undertook to protect against a British
and Indian raid the alarmed inhabitants of Frenchtown [now
Monroe, Michigan], a place 30 miles nearer Malden. Here
[January 22, 1813] he was overpowered by the enemy, which fell
upon the American force suddenly at daybreak, with yells and a
shower of bomb-shells and canister. Winchester having been
taken prisoner, Colonel Proctor, the British commander,
extorted from him the unconditional surrender of all his
troops, some 700 in number, as the only means of saving them
from the tomahawk and scalping-knife. … Our sick and wounded …
the British commander shamefully abandoned to their fate. …
Officers and men, many of them the flower of Kentucky,
perished victims to barbarities … abhorrent to civilized
warfare, of which the British Colonel Proctor and Captain
Elliott were not innocent. Besides the American loss in
prisoners at the sad affair of the Raisin, nearly 200 were
killed and missing. Hearing at the Upper Sandusky of
Winchester's intended movement, Harrison had pressed to his
relief with reinforcements, but fugitives from Frenchtown
brought the melancholy tidings of disaster; and Harrison fell
back to the Rapids, there to strengthen the post known as Fort
Meigs, and go into winter quarters. The terms of many of his
troops having now expired, the Northwestern army was for many
months too feeble to begin a forward movement. But Harrison
possessed the unabated confidence of the West, and, promoted
to be one of the new major-generals, he received, through the
zealous co-operation of Ohio and Kentucky, whose people were
inflamed to take vengeance, enough volunteer reinforcements
[May] to relieve Fort Meigs [which was twice besieged in 1813
by British and Indians] from Proctor's investment in the
spring, and at length the quota requisite for resuming the
offensive; other frontier plans of the War Department having
long deranged his own in this quarter. The splendid
co-operation of an American flotilla on Lake Erie opened the
way to Detroit and victory. For that memorable service
Commodore Chauncey had detailed an aspiring young naval
officer, Captain Oliver H. Perry, of Rhode Island. Our little
Lake squadron was tediously constructed at Presqu' Isle (now
Erie). When all at last was ready [in August, 1813], Perry,
who had long chafed in spirit while the British fleet hovered
in sight like a hawk, sailed forth to dispute the supremacy of
the broad inland waters. His heavier vessels were floated over
the bar not without difficulty. After conferring at Sandusky
upon the combined plan of operations with General Harrison,
from whom he received a small detail of soldiers to act as
marines and supply vacancies in his crews, he offered battle
to Barclay, the British commander,—the latter a veteran in
naval experience, who had served under Nelson at Trafalgar.
Barclay had lain idly for several weeks at Malden, in hopes of
procuring additional sailors, purposely avoiding an action
meanwhile. But Proctor's army having now run short of
provisions, longer delay was inexpedient. At sunrise on
September 10th Perry descried the approaching British fleet
from his look-out, a group of islands off Sandusky. Ten miles
to the north of this locality, which was known as Put-in-bay,
the two squadrons at noon engaged one another,—Perry
approaching at an acute angle, and keeping the weather-gage,
while Barclay's vessels hove to in close order. In officers
and men the fleets were about equally matched; there were 6
British vessels to the American 9, but the former carried more
guns, and were greatly superior for action from a distance.
With 30 long guns to Perry's 15, Barclay had the decided
advantage at first, and our flag-ship, the Lawrence, exposed
to the heaviest of the British cannonade, became terribly
battered, her decks wet with carnage, her guns dismounted.
Undismayed by this catastrophe, Perry dropped into a little
boat with his broad pennant and banner, and crossed to his
next largest vessel, the Niagara, the target for 15 minutes of
a furious fire while being rowed over. Climbing the Niagara's
deck, and hoisting once more the emblems of commander, our
brave captain now pierced the enemy's line with his new
flag-ship, followed by his smaller vessels, and, gaining at
last that advantage of a close engagement which for nearly
three hours had eluded him, he won the fight in eight minutes.
The colors of the Detroit, Barclay's flag-ship, struck first,
three others followed the example, and two of the British
squadron attempting to escape were overtaken and brought back
triumphantly. 'We have met the enemy and they are ours,' was
Perry's laconic dispatch to Harrison, written in pencil on the
back of an old letter, with his navy-cap for a rest; 'two
ships, two brigs, one schooner, and one sloop.' … Barclay lay
dangerously wounded, and his next in command died that
evening. … To Harrison's expectant army, augmented by 3,500
mounted Kentuckians, whom Governor Shelby led in person, the
word of advance was now given. …
{3346}
Perry's flotilla, aided by the captured vessels, presently
landed the American troops on the Canada side. Proctor had
already begun the retreat, having first dismantled the fort at
Malden and burned the barracks. Harrison pursued him beyond
Sandwich, covered by the flotilla, until near a Moravian town,
up the river Thames [some 30 miles east of Lake St. Clair],
the enemy was overtaken, with Tecumseh's braves. Here, upon
well-chosen ground, the British made a final stand [October
5], but at the first impetuous charge of our cavalry their
line broke, and only the Indians remained to engage in a
desperate hand-to-hand fight. Among the slain was the famous
Tecumseh, dispatched, as tradition asserts, by the pistol of
Colonel Johnson, a Kentucky officer prominent in the battle.
Proctor himself escaped in a carriage with a few followers,
incurring afterwards the royal reprimand. … The baleful
British and Indian alliance was broken up by these victories,
while Detroit, Michigan, and all that Hull had lost, and a
fair portion of Upper Canada besides, passed into American
control. Among American generals in this war Harrison enjoyed
the rare felicity of having fully accomplished his
undertaking."
J. Schouler,
History of the United States,
chapter 8, section 2
and chapter 9, section 1 (volume 2).
"The victory of Lake Erie was most important, both in its
material results and in its moral effect. It gave us complete
command of all the upper lakes, prevented any fears of
invasion from that quarter, increased our prestige with the
foe and our confidence in ourselves, and ensured the conquest
of Upper Canada; in all these respects its importance has not
been overrated. But the 'glory' acquired by it most certainly
has been estimated at more than its worth. … The simple truth
is, that, where on both sides the officers and men were
equally brave and skilful, the side which possessed the
superiority in force, in the proportion of three to two, could
not well help winning. … Though we had nine guns less, yet, at
a broadside, they threw half as much metal again as those of
our antagonist."
T. Roosevelt,
The Naval War of 1812,
chapter 6.
ALSO IN:
C. D. Yonge,
History of the British Navy,
chapter 36 (volume 3).
E. Eggleston and L. E. Seelye,
Tecumseh,
chapters 26-34.
I. R. Jackson,
Life of W. H. Harrison,
chapters 7-9.
B. J. Lossing,
Field Book of the War of 1812,
chapters 16-17, and 23-26.
G. Bancroft,
History of the Battle of Lake Erie.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813 (April-July).
The burning of Toronto.
The capture of Fort George.
"The American fleet on Lake Ontario had been increased, and in
1813 controlled the lake. General Sheaffe had succeeded Brock
as Governor as well as commander of the forces. Some 600
troops were in York [now Toronto], the capital. York had about
1,000 inhabitants, and was not regarded as of strategic
importance. The Americans, however, set sail from Sackett's
Harbour with 16 sail and 2,500 men to attack it. The enemy
landed [April 27] to the west of the town, and General Sheaffe
evacuated the works, and retired down the Kingston Road. The
Americans invested the town, and though skirmishing took
place, had an easy victory. The land force was under General
Pike, an officer well known as having, when a lieutenant,
explored the sources of the Mississippi. Just as the Americans
had well filled the fort, the powder-magazine exploded with
violence, killing and wounding about 250. General Pike, struck
in the breast by a flying stone, died soon after. The
Americans, contrary to the articles of surrender, shamefully
burnt the town, and retired from York on the 2nd of May, 1813.
While the squadron was absent, Sackett's Harbour was attacked
by a strong force. The garrison seemed to be on the point of
surrendering the fort, when Sir George Prevost, to the
surprise of all, ordered a retreat. Little York taken,
Commodore Chauncey then crossed the lake to Fort George at the
mouth of the Niagara River. General Vincent commanded the
fort. Twenty-four of Hull's guns frowned from its bastions.
Its defender had 1,340 men. The American army on the Niagara
frontier numbered 6,000. Chauncey had eleven war-vessels and
900 seamen. On the 27th of May the expected day came. Vincent
drew his men out about a mile from the fort and awaited the
attack. He was overpowered and retired, having lost nearly 450
soldiers. The Canadian force retired to a strong position,
'Beaver Dams,' twelve miles from Niagara on the heights,
having given up Fort Erie and Chippewa and blown up Fort
George. Vincent had now 1,600 men, and with these he retired
to Burlington Heights, near the present city of Hamilton. An
American army of 2,500 men followed General Vincent to Stoney
Creek. On the night of the 8th of June, Colonel Harvey of the
British force, with upwards of 750 men, fell stealthily on the
sleeping American army, scattered the troops, killed many,
captured the American generals Chandler and Winder, and about
100 men, along with guns and stores. The adventurers then
retired to their camp. The scattered American soldiers
reassembled in the morning and retired in a disorderly manner
down the country to Fort George. Vincent now followed the
retreating army and reoccupied Beaver Dams. One of his
outposts was held by Lieutenant Fitzgibbon and 30 men.
Smarting with defeat, the American general sought to surprise
this station as a basis for future attacks. He secretly
despatched Colonel Boerstler with nearly 700 men to capture
it. A wounded militiaman, living within the lines at
Queenston, heard by chance of the expedition. … The alarm was
given [by the militiaman's wife, who travelled 20 miles
through the forest, at night] and that night the men lay on
their arms. Early next morning the American party came, but an
ambuscade had been prepared for them, and after severe
fighting 542 men surrendered into the hands of some 260.
General Dearborn soon after retired from the command of the
American army, to be succeeded by General Boyd. British
parties captured Fort Schlosser and Black Rock on the Niagara
River at this time, though at the latter place with the loss
of Colonel Bishopp, the idol of his men. Colonel Scott, in
command of troops on board Commodore Chauncey's fleet, again
scoured Lake Ontario. Landing at Burlington Heights on the
31st of July, they did nothing more than reconnoitre the works
and depart. Afterwards the second attack on York was made and
the barracks burnt. After this a trial of strength took place
between Sir James Yeo's fleet, now sent forth from Kingston
Harbour, and Chauncey's squadron. The Americans lost two
vessels in a squall, and two were captured by the British, but
the result between the two fleets was indecisive."
G. Bryce,
Short History of the Canadian People,
chapter 8, section 5.
ALSO IN:
R. Johnson,
History of the War of 1812-1815,
chapter 7.
{3347}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813 (October-November).
The abortive expedition against Montreal.
"While Perry and Harrison were … reclaiming our lost ground on
Lake Erie and in the northwest, Armstrong was preparing to
carry out his favorite plan of a descent on Kingston and
Montreal. When he accepted the post of Secretary of War, he
transferred his department from Washington to Sackett's
Harbor, so that he might superintend in person the progress of
the campaign. … Although Wilkinson had superseded Dearborn, as
commander-in-chief of this district in July, he did not issue
his first orders to the army till the 23d of August. … General
Wade Hampton, who had been recalled from the fifth military
district to the northern frontier, encamped with his army,
4,000 strong, at Plattsburg, on Lake Champlain. The plan
finally adopted by the Secretary was, to have Wilkinson drop
down the St. Lawrence, and without stopping to attack the
English posts on the river, form a junction with General
Hampton, when the two armies should march at once on Montreal.
These two Generals were both Revolutionary officers, and
consequently too advanced in years to carry such an expedition
through with vigor and activity. Besides, a hostile feeling
separated them, rendering each jealous of the other's command.
… Chauncey, In the mean time, after an action with Yeo, in
which both parties claimed the victory, forced his adversary
to take refuge in Burlington Bay. He then wrote to Wilkinson
that the lake was clear of the enemy, and reported himself
ready to transport the troops down the St. Lawrence. The
greatest expectations were formed of this expedition. The
people knew nothing of the quarrel between Wilkinson and
Hampton, and thought only of the strength of their united
force. … While Wilkinson was preparing to fulfill his part of
the campaign, Hampton made a bold push into Canada on his own
responsibility. Advancing from Plattsburg, he marched directly
for St. John, but finding water scarce for his draft cattle,
owing to a severe drought, he moved to the left, and next day
arrived at Chateaugay Four Corners, a few miles from the
Canada line. Here he was overtaken by an order from Armstrong,
commanding him to remain where he was, until the arrival of
Wilkinson. But jealous of his rival, and wishing to achieve a
victory in which the honor would not be divided, he resolved
to take upon himself the responsibility of advancing alone.
Several detachments of militia had augmented his force of
4,000, and he deemed himself sufficiently strong to attack
Prevost, who he was told had only about 2,000 ill assorted
troops under him. He therefore gave orders to march, and
cutting a road for 24 miles through the wilderness, after five
days great toil, reached the British position. Ignorant of its
weakness, he dispatched Colonel Purdy at night by a circuitous
route to gain the enemy's flank and rear and assail his works,
while he attacked them in front. Bewildered by the darkness,
and led astray by his guide, Colonel Purdy wandered through
the forest, entirely ignorant of the whereabouts of the enemy
or of his own. General Hampton, however, supposing that he had
succeeded in his attempt, ordered General Izard to advance
with the main body of the army, and as soon as firing was
heard in the rear to commence the attack in front. Izard
marched up his men and a skirmish ensued, when Colonel De
Salaberry, the British commander, who had but a handful of
regulars under him, ordered the bugles, which had been placed
at some distance apart on purpose to represent a large force,
to sound the charge. The ruse succeeded admirably, and a halt
was ordered. The bugles brought up the lost detachment of
Purdy, but suddenly assailed by a concealed body of militia,
his command was thrown into disorder and broke and fled.
Disconcerted by the defeat of Purdy, Hampton ordered a
retreat, without making any attempt to carry the British
intrenchments. … Hampton, defeated by the blasts of a few
bugles, took up his position again at the Four Corners, to
wait further news from Wilkinson's division. The latter having
concentrated his troops at Grenadier Island, embarked them
again the same day that Hampton advanced, against orders,
towards Montreal. Three hundred boats, covering the river for
miles, carried the infantry and artillery, while the cavalry,
500 strong, marched along the bank. … They were two weeks in
reaching the river. Wilkinson, who had been recalled from New
Orleans, to take charge of this expedition, was prostrated by
the lake fever, which, added to the infirmities of age,
rendered him wholly unfit for the position he occupied.
General Lewis, his second in command, was also sick. The
season was already far advanced—the autumnal storms had set
in earlier than usual—everything conspired to ensure defeat;
and around this wreck of a commander, tossed an army,
dispirited, disgusted, and doomed to disgrace. General Brown
led the advance of this army of invasion, as it started for
Montreal, 180 miles distant. … When it reached the head of the
long rapids at Hamilton, 20 miles below Ogdensburg, Wilkinson
ordered General Brown to advance by land and cover the passage
of the boats through the narrow defiles, where the enemy had
established block houses. In the mean time the cavalry had
crossed over to the Canadian side and, with 1,500 men under
General Boyd, been despatched against the enemy, which was
constantly harassing his rear. General Boyd, accompanied by
Generals Swartwout and Covington as volunteers, moved forward
in three columns. Colonel Ripley advancing with the 21st
Regiment, drove the enemy's sharp shooters from the woods, and
emerged on an open space, called Chrystler's Field, and
directly in front of two English regiments. Notwithstanding
the disparity of numbers this gallant officer ordered a
charge, which was executed with such firmness that the two
regiments retired. Rallying and making a stand, they were
again charged and driven back. … At length the British retired
to their camp and the Americans maintained their position on
the shore, so that the flotilla passed the Saut in safety.
This action [called the battle of Chrystler's Farm, or
Williamsburg] has never received the praise it deserves—the
disgraceful failure of the campaign having cast a shadow upon
it. The British, though inferior in numbers, had greatly the
advantage in having possession of a stone house in the midst
of the field. …
{3348}
Nearly one-fifth of the entire force engaged were killed or
wounded. … The army, however, still held its course for
Montreal. Young Scott, who had joined the expedition at
Ogdensburg, was 15 miles ahead, clearing, with a detachment of
less than 800 men, the river banks as he went. Montreal was
known to be feebly garrisoned, and Wilkinson had no doubt it
would fall an easy conquest. He therefore sent forward to
Hampton to join him at St. Regis, with provisions. Hampton, in
reply, said, that his men could bring no more provisions than
they wanted for their own use, and informed him, in short,
that he should not co-operate with him at all, but make the
best of his way back to Lake Champlain. On receiving this
astounding news, Wilkinson called a council of war, which
reprobated in strong terms the conduct of Hampton, and decided
that in consideration of his failure, and the lateness of the
season, the march should be suspended, and the army retire to
winter quarters. This was carried into effect, and Wilkinson
repaired to French Mills, on Salmon river, for the winter, and
Hampton to Plattsburg."
J. T. Headley,
The Second War with England,
volume 1, chapter. 13.
ALSO IN:
W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
Popular History of the United States,
volume 4, chapter 8.
S. Perkins,
History of the Late War,
chapter 12.
J. Armstrong,
Notices of the War of 1812,
volume 2, chapter 1.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813 (December).
Retaliatory devastation of the Niagara frontier.
Fort Niagara surprised.
The burning of Buffalo.
"The withdrawal of troops from the Niagara frontier to take
part in Wilkinson's expedition left the defence of that line
almost entirely to militia, and the term for which the militia
had been called out expired on the 9th of December. The next
day General George McClure, who had been left in command at
Fort George, found himself at the head of but 60 effective
men, while the British General Drummond had brought up to the
peninsula 400 troops and 70 Indians—released by the failure of
Wilkinson's expedition—and was preparing to attack him.
McClure thereupon determined to evacuate the fort, as the only
alternative from capture or destruction, and remove his men
and stores across the river to Fort Niagara. He also
determined to burn the village of Newark, that the enemy might
find no shelter. The laudable part of this plan was but
imperfectly carried out; he failed to destroy the barracks,
and left unharmed tents for 1,500 men, several pieces of
artillery, and a large quantity of ammunition, all of which
fell into the hands of Drummond's men. But the inexcusable
part—the burning of a village in midwinter, inhabited by
noncombatants who had been guilty of no special offence—was
only too faithfully executed. The inhabitants were given
twelve hours in which to remove their goods, and then the
torch was applied, and not a house was left standing. This
needless cruelty produced its natural result; Drummond
determined upon swift and ample retaliation. In the night of
December 18th, just one week after the burning of Newark, he
threw across the Niagara a force of 550 men. They landed at
Five Mile Meadows, three miles above Fort Niagara, and marched
upon it at once, arriving there at four o'clock in the
morning. McClure, who had received an intimation of the
enemy's intention to devastate the American frontier, had gone
to Buffalo to raise a force to oppose him. The garrison of the
fort consisted of about 450 men, a large number of whom were
in the hospital. The command had been left to a Captain
Leonard, who at this time was three miles away, sleeping at a
farm-house. The most elaborate preparations had been made for
the capture of the fort, including scaling-ladders for
mounting the bastions. But the Americans seemed to have
studied to make the task as easy as possible. The sentries
were seized and silenced before they could give any alarm, and
the main gate was found standing wide open, so that the
British had only to walk straight in and begin at once the
stabbing which had been determined upon. The guard in the
south-east block-house tired one volley, by which the British
commander, Colonel Murray, was wounded, and a portion of the
invalids made what resistance they could. A British lieutenant
and five men were killed, and a surgeon and three men wounded.
Sixty-five Americans, two-thirds of whom were invalids, were
bayoneted in their beds; 15 others, who had taken refuge in
the cellars, were despatched in the same manner, and 14 were
wounded; 20 escaped, and all the others, about 340, were made
prisoners. … On the same morning, General Riall, with a
detachment of British troops and 500 Indians, crossed from
Queenstown." Lewiston, Youngstown, Tuscarora and Manchester
(now Niagara Falls) were plundered and burned, and the houses
and barns of farmers along the river, within a belt of several
miles, were destroyed. "The bridge over Tonawanda Creek had
been destroyed by the Americans, and at this point the enemy
turned back, and soon recrossed the Niagara to the Canada
side. The alarm at Buffalo brought General Hall, of the New
York militia, to that village, where he arrived the day after
Christmas. He found collected there a body of 1,700 men, whom
it would have been gross flattery to call a 'force.' They were
poorly supplied with arms and cartridges, and had no
discipline and almost no organization. Another regiment of 300
soon joined them, but without adding much to their efficiency.
On the 28th of December, Drummond reconnoitred the American
camp, and determined to attack it; for which purpose he sent
over General Riall on the evening of the 29th with 1,450 men,
largely regulars, and a body of Indians. One detachment landed
two miles below Black Rock, crossed Canajokaties [or
Scajaquada] Creek in the face of a slight resistance, and took
possession of a battery. The remainder landed at a point
between Buffalo and Black Rock [two villages then, now united
in one city], under cover of a battery on the Canadian shore.
Poor as Hall's troops were, they stood long enough to fire
upon the invaders and inflict considerable loss. … Both sides
had artillery, with which the action was opened. As it
progressed, however, the American line was broken in the
centre, and Hall was compelled to fall back. His subsequent
attempts to rally his men were of no avail, and he himself
seems to have lost heart, as Lieutenant Riddle, who had about
80 regulars, offered to place them in front for the
encouragement of the militia to new exertion, but Hall
declined. … Both Buffalo and Black Rock were sacked and
burned, and no mercy was shown. With but two or three
exceptions, those of the inhabitants who were not able to run
away were massacred. …
{3349}
It is related that in Buffalo a widow named St. John 'had the
address to appease the ferocity of the enemy so far as to
remain in her house uninjured.' Her house and the stone jail
were the only buildings not laid in ashes. In Black Rock every
building was either burned or blown up, except one log house,
in which a few women and children had taken refuge. … Five
vessels lying at the wharves were also burned. In this
expedition the British lost 108 men, killed, wounded or
missing. More than 50 of the Americans were found dead on the
field. Truly, an abundant revenge had been taken for the
burning of Newark. … On New Year's day of 1814 the settlers
along the whole length of the Niagara—those of them who
survived—were shivering beside the smouldering embers of
their homes."
R. Johnson,
History of the War of 1812-1815,
chapter 9.
ALSO IN:
C. Johnson,
Centennial History of Erie County, New York,
chapters 24-25.
W. Ketchum,
History of Buffalo,
volume 2, chapter 15.
O. Turner,
Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase,
pages 589-606.
W. Dorsheimer,
Buffalo during the war of 1812
(Buffalo Historical Society Publication, volume 1).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814.
British blockade of the Atlantic coast.
"The blockade of the Atlantic coast was enforced by British
vessels from the beginning of the year 1813. At first they
were inclined to spare the coast of New England, which they
supposed to be friendly to Great Britain, but this policy was
soon abandoned, and the whole coast was treated alike. Groups
of war-vessels were stationed before each of the principal
sea-ports, and others were continually in motion along the
coast, from Halifax on the north to the West Indies. Early in
1813, they took possession of the mouth of Chesapeake Bay as a
naval station, and the American Government ordered all the
lights to be put out in the neighboring light-houses. The
Atlantic coast was thus kept in a state of almost constant
alarm, for the British vessels were continually landing men at
exposed points to burn, plunder, and destroy. … In 1813, the
defenceless towns of Lewes, Havre de Grace, and Hampton (near
Fortress Monroe) were bombarded, and Stonington, Conn., in
1814; and a number of smaller towns were burned or plundered.
Attacks on New York and other larger cities were prevented
only by fear of torpedoes, by means of which the Americans had
nearly blown up one or two British ships which ventured too
near New York. … Maine, as far as the Penobscot River, was
seized by the British in 1814, and was held until the end of
the war."
A. Johnston,
History of the United States for Schools,
sections 384-386.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814 (August-April).
The Creek War.
General Jackson's first campaign.
The great Indian chief Tecumseh had been trying for years to
unite all the red men against the whites. There would have
been an Indian war if there had been no war with England, but
the latter war seemed to be Tecumseh's opportunity. Among the
southwestern Indians he found acceptance only with the Creeks,
who were already on the verge of civil war, because some
wanted to adopt civilized life, and others refused. The latter
became the war party, under Weatherford [Red Eagle], a very
able half-breed chief. The first outbreak in the Southwest,
although there had been some earlier hostilities, was the
massacre of the garrison and refugees at Fort Mims, at the
junction of the Alabama and Tombigbee rivers, August 30, 1813.
There were 553 persons in the fort, of whom only 5 or 6
escaped. … The result of the massacre at Fort Mims was that
Alabama was almost abandoned by whites. Terror and desire for
revenge took possession of Georgia and Tennessee. September
25th the Tennessee Legislature voted to raise men and money to
aid the people of Mississippi territory against the Creeks."
Andrew Jackson, one of the two major-generals of the Tennessee
militia, was then confined to his bed by a wound received in a
recent fight with Thomas H. Benton and Benton's brother. "As
soon as he possibly could, Jackson took the field. Georgia had
a force in the field under General Floyd. General Claiborne
was acting at the head of troops from Louisiana and
Mississippi. This Indian war had a local character and was
outside the federal operations, although in the end it had a
great effect upon them. … The Creek war was remarkable for
three things: (1) the quarrels between the generals, and the
want of concert of action; (2) lack of provisions; (3)
insubordination in the ranks. … On three occasions Jackson had
to use one part of his army to prevent another part from
marching home, he and they differing on the construction of
the terms of enlistment. He showed very strong qualities under
these trying circumstances. … In the conduct of the movements
against the enemy his energy was very remarkable. So long as
there was an enemy unsubdued Jackson could not rest, and could
not give heed to anything else. … At the end of March [1814]
Jackson destroyed a body of the Creeks at Tohopeka, or
Horse-Shoe Bend, in the northeast corner of the present
Tallapoosa County, Alabama. With the least possible delay he
pushed on to the last refuge of the Creeks, the Hickory
Ground, at the confluence of the Coosa and Tallapoosa, and the
Holy Ground a few miles distant. The medicine men, appealing
to the superstition of the Indians, had taught them to believe
that no white man could tread the latter ground and live. In
April the remnant of the Creeks surrendered or fled to
Florida, overcome as much by the impetuous and relentless
character of the campaign against them as by actual blows.
Fort Jackson was built on the Hickory Ground. The march down
through Alabama was a great achievement, considering the
circumstances of the country at the time. … The Creek campaign
lasted only seven months. In itself considered, it was by no
means an important Indian war, but in its connection with
other military movements it was very important. Tecumseh had
been killed at the battle of the Thames, in Canada, October 5,
1813. His scheme of a race war died with him. The Creek
campaign put an end to any danger of hostilities from the
southwestern Indians, in alliance either with other Indians or
with the English. … This campaign … was the beginning of
Jackson's fame and popularity, and from it dates his career.
He was 47 years old. On the 31st of May he was appointed a
major-general in the army of the United States, and was given
command of the department of the South. He established his
headquarters at Mobile in August, 1814."
W. G. Sumner,
Andrew Jackson as a Public Man,
chapter 2.
{3350}
ALSO IN:
G. C. Eggleston,
Red Eagle.
J. W. Monette,
Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi,
book 5, chapter 14 (volume 2).
B. J. Lossing,
Field Book of the War of 1812,
chapters 33-34.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (July-September).
On the Niagara Frontier.
Chippewa.
Lundy's Lane.
Fort Erie.
"After the desolation of the Niagara frontier in 1813, there
appeared to be nothing for the parties to contend for in that
quarter. No object could be obtained by a victory on either
side, but the temporary occupation of a vacant territory; yet
both parties seemed to have selected this as the principal
theatre on which to display their military prowess in the year
1814. Lieutenant General Drummond, governor of Upper Canada,
concentrated the forces of that province at Fort George, and
retained the possession of Niagara. The American Generals
Smyth, Hampton, Dearborn, and Wilkinson, under whose auspices
the campaigns of 1812 and 1813, on the Canada border, were
conducted, had retired from that field; and General Brown was
appointed major general, and, with the assistance of
Brigadiers Scott and Ripley, designated to the command of the
Niagara frontier. He left Sackett's Harbour in May, with a
large portion of the American troops. … On his arrival at
Buffalo, calculating upon the co-operation of the Ontario
fleet, he determined on an attempt to expel the British from
the Niagara peninsula. With this view he crossed the river on
the 3d of July. … On the same day he invested Fort Erie, and
summoned it to surrender, allowing the commandant two hours to
answer the summons. At five in the afternoon the fort
surrendered, and the prisoners, amounting to 137, were removed
to Buffalo. On the morning of the fourth General Scott
advanced with his brigade and corps of artillery, and took a
position on the Chippewa plain, half a mile in front of the
village, his right resting on the river, and his front
protected by a ravine. The British were encamped in force at
the village. In the evening General Brown joined him with the
reserve under General Ripley, and the artillery commanded by
Major Hindman. General Porter arrived the next morning, with
the New York and Pennsylvania volunteers, and a number of
Indians of the six nations. … At four in the afternoon,
General Porter advanced, taking the woods in order to conceal
his approach, and … met the whole British force approaching in
order of battle. General Scott, with his brigade and Towser's
artillery, met them on the plain, in front of the American
encampment, and was directly engaged in close action with the
main body. General Porter's command gave way. … The reserve
were now ordered up, and General Ripley passed to the woods in
left of the line to gain the rear of the enemy; but before
this was effected, General Scott had compelled the British to
retire. Their whole line now fell back, and were eagerly
pursued. … The British left 200 dead on the ground. … The
American loss was 60 killed, and 268 wounded and missing.
After the battle of Chippewa, the British retired to Fort
George; and General Brown took post at Queenston, where he
remained some time, expecting reinforcements. … On the 20th,
General Brown advanced with his army towards Fort George,
drove in the outposts, and encamped near the fort, in the
expectation that the British would come out and give him
battle. On the 22d, he returned to his former position at
Queenston; here he received a letter from General Gaines,
informing him that the heavy guns, and the rifle regiment,
which he had ordered from Sackett's harbour, together with the
whole fleet, were blockaded in that port, and no assistance
was to be expected from them. On the 24th, he fell back to
Chippewa, and on the 25th received intelligence that the
enemy, having received large reinforcements from Kingston,
were advancing upon him. The first brigade under General
Scott, Towser's artillery, all the dragoons and mounted men,
were immediately put in motion on the Queenston road. On his
arrival at the Niagara cataract, General Scott learned that
the British were in force directly in his front, separated
only by a narrow piece of wood. Having despatched this
intelligence to General Brown, he advanced upon the enemy, and
the action commenced at six o'clock in the afternoon. … The
British artillery had taken post on a commanding eminence, at
the head of Lundy's lane, supported by a line of infantry,
out of the reach of the American batteries. This was the key
of the whole position; from hence they poured a most deadly
fire on the American ranks. It became necessary either to
leave the ground, or to carry this post and seize the height.
The latter desperate task was assigned to Colonel Miller. On
receiving the order from General Brown, he calmly surveyed the
position, and answered 'I will try, sir,' which expression was
afterwards the motto of his regiment. … Colonel Miller
advanced coolly and steadily to his object, amid a tremendous
fire, and at the point of the bayonet, carried the artillery
and the height. The guns were immediately turned upon the
enemy; General Ripley now brought up the 23d regiment, to the
support of Colonel Miller; the first regiment was rallied and
brought into line, and the British were driven from the hill.
… The British rallied under the hill, and made a desperate
attempt to regain their artillery, and drive the Americans
from their position, but without success; a second and third
attempt was made with the like result. General Scott was
engaged in repelling these attacks, and though with his
shoulder fractured, and a severe wound in the side, continued
at the head of his column, endeavouring to turn the enemy's
right flank. The volunteers under General Porter, during the
last charge of the British, precipitated themselves upon their
lines, broke them, and took a large number of prisoners.
General Brown … received a severe wound on the thigh, and in
the side, and … consigned the command to General Ripley. At
twelve o'clock, both parties retired from the field to their
respective encampments, fatigued and satiated with slaughter.
… The battle [called Lundy's Lane, or Bridgewater, or Niagara]
was fought to the west of, and within half a mile of the
Niagara cataract. … Considering the numbers engaged, few
contests have ever been more sanguinary. … General Brown
states his loss to be, killed, 171; wounded, 572; missing,
117; [total] 860. General Drummond acknowledges a loss of,
killed, 84; wounded, 559; missing and prisoners, 235; [total]
878. … General Ripley, on the 26th, fell back to Fort Erie.
General Brown retired to Buffalo, and General Scott to
Batavia, to recover from their wounds."
S. Perkins,
History of the Late War,
chapter 17.
{3351}
"Fort Erie was a small work with two demi-bastions; one upon
the north and the other upon the south front. It was built of
stone, but was not of sufficient strength to resist ordnance
heavier than the field artillery of that day. Ripley at once
commenced to strengthen the position. Fortunately, General
Drummond delayed his advance for two days, giving the
Americans an opportunity of which they industriously availed
themselves. … Fort Erie was changed into an entrenched camp,
with its rear open toward the river. General Drummond appeared
before the fort, on the 3d of August, with a force of 5,350
men. He established his camp two miles distant, back of
Waterloo, and commenced a double line of entrenchments within
400 yards of the main work. The same morning he threw a force
of about 1,000 men across the river, and landed them below
Squaw Island, with the intention of seizing Buffalo,
destroying the stores gathered there, and interrupting the
communications of the American army. This soldierly plan was
happily frustrated by Major Morgan with a battalion of the
First Rifles, 250 strong. … During the following fortnight
several skirmishes occurred in front of Fort Erie, in one of
which the gallant Colonel Morgan was killed. General Drummond,
having been still further reinforced, determined not to wait
for the slow results of a siege, but to carry the place by
assault. At two o'clock in the morning of the 3d of August,
the British army moved to the attack in three columns. One was
ordered to carry the Douglass battery, upon the extreme right
of our position; another column was to engage the fort itself;
but the main attack was directed against the Towson battery
upon Snake Hill. Brigadier-General Gaines, who had lately
arrived, was now in command of the American forces. … The
evening before, a shell had exploded a small magazine in Fort
Erie, and General Gaines was apprehensive that the enemy would
take advantage of this disaster and attack him,—one-third of
the troops were therefore kept at their post through the

night, which was dark and rainy. His precautions were well
taken. At half-past two the tramp of a heavy column was heard
approaching Towson's redoubt. Instantly a sheet of fire
flashed from our lines, lighting up the night, and revealing
the enemy 1,500 strong. They had been ordered to attack with
the bayonet; and, to insure obedience, the flints had been
removed from their muskets. With complete courage they
approached to within reach of the light abattis, between Snake
Hill and the lake. But after a desperate struggle they fell
back. Again they advanced, and this time succeeded in planting
scaling ladders in the ditch in front of the redoubt. But
their ladders were too short, and the assailants were driven
off with severe loss. Meanwhile a detachment endeavored to
turn our position by wading out into the river, and passing
round our left. Ripley met them promptly. Numbers were killed
or wounded, and were carried off by the current, and the
remainder of the detachment were captured: Five times the
obstinate English returned to the assault, but each time
without success. … The other British columns waited until the
engagement on the left was at its height. On our right the
enemy advanced to within 50 yards of the Douglass battery, but
were then driven back. At the fort the contest was more
severe. The assailants, led by Colonel Drummond, an officer of
singular determination, advanced through a ravine north of the
fort, and attacking simultaneously all the salient points,
they swarmed over the parapet into the north bastion. … The
garrison of the fort rallied, and after a severe contest
succeeded in regaining possession of the bastion. A second and
third time Drummond returned to the assault with no better
success. But with invincible tenacity he clung to his purpose.
Moving his troops, under cover of the night and the dense
cloud of battle which hung along the ramparts, silently round
the ditch, he suddenly repeated the charge. The English ran up
their ladders so quickly that they gained the top of the
glacis before the defenders could rally to resist them. … The
garrison of the fort made repeated unsuccessful efforts to
retake the bastion; but at day-break it was still in the
enemy's possession. Powerful detachments were then brought up
from the left and center, and a combined attempt was made from
several different directions to drive the British from their
position; but, after a desperate struggle, this likewise
failed. The guns of the Douglass battery, and those under
Captain Fanning, were turned upon the bastion, and Captain
Biddle was placing a piece of artillery to enfilade it, while
several hundred of the American reserve stood ready to rush
upon it. At this moment a loud explosion shook the earth, and
the whole bastion leaped into the air, carrying with it both
its assailants and defenders. The cause of this explosion has
never been accurately ascertained. It is generally supposed to
have been accidental. … The shattered columns of the foe now
retired to their encampment. The British report stated their
loss at 905 killed, wounded and missing; of whom 222 were
killed, including 14 officers; 174 wounded; and 186 prisoners
remained in our hands. Our loss, including 11 prisoners, was
84 men. In the bombardment of the day before we had 45 killed
and wounded; swelling our total loss to 129. A few days after
this, Drummond was reinforced by two regiments, and reopened
fire along his own line. The bombardment continued through the
remainder of the month of August. On the 28th, General Gaines
was wounded by a shell, which fell into his quarters, and
General Ripley again assumed the command, but was soon
superseded by General Brown, who had recovered from the wound
received at Lundy's Lane. General Porter, by dint of
superhuman efforts, gathered a considerable body of militia at
Buffalo, to reinforce the fort. … Notwithstanding the victory
I have just described, and the reinforcements brought by
Porter, the American army at Fort Erie was in a very dangerous
situation. Their foe was daily increasing in number, and three
new batteries were thrown up, whose fire was rapidly making
the position untenable. … Under the pressure of this great
necessity, General Porter planned a sortie, which was
submitted to General Brown; who approved it, and ordered it to
be carried out. … By this enterprise, altogether the most
brilliant military event which occurred on this frontier
during the war, all of the enemy's guns in position were made
useless, and their entrenchments destroyed. We took 385
prisoners, including 11 commissioned officers, and killed or
wounded 600 men. Our own loss was 510. … Four days after this,
General Drummond raised the siege, and fell back to Fort
George."
W. Dorsheimer,
Buffalo during the War of 1812
(Buffalo Historical Society Publications, volume 1).
ALSO IN:
E. Cruikshank,
The Battle of Lundy's Lane
(Lundy's Lane Historical Society).
Gen. W. Scott,
Memoirs by himself,
chapters 9-11 (volume 1).
C. Johnson,
Centennial History of Erie County, New York,
chapter 26.
B. J. Lossing,
Field Book of the War of 1812,
chapters 35-36.
The Attack on Fort Erie
(Portfolio, February, 1816).
{3352}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (August-September).
Capture and destruction of the national Capital.
Attempt against Baltimore.
Early in the "summer of 1814, rumors spread through the
capital of a great British armament preparing at Bermuda, some
said for an attack on New York, others on Baltimore and
Annapolis, while others asserted quite as vehemently that the
national capital was the chosen object of British vengeance.
How easy it would be, they argued, for Admiral Sir George
Cockburn, who had been a year with his fleet in Chesapeake
Bay, when reinforced by the Bermuda armament to disembark a
strong column at any point on the western shore of the
Chesapeake—but forty miles distant—and by a forced march
capture the city. But by some strange fatuity, the President
and his cabinet treated these possibilities as unworthy of
credence. 'The British come here!' a Cabinet officer is
reported to have said, in answer to the representations of
citizens. "What should they come here for?' Sure enough: a
provincial village of 6,000 inhabitants. But then there were
the state papers and public buildings, the moral effect of
capturing an enemy's capital, and the satisfaction of
chastising the city where a British minister had been obliged
to ask for his recall on the ground of ill-treatment. …
Colonel James Monroe, a gallant soldier of the Revolution, was
now Secretary of State; another Revolutionary soldier, General
Armstrong, was Secretary of War, and acting on their advice,
President Madison did substantially nothing for the defence of
his capital. Fort Washington, commanding the Potomac, which
Major L'Enfant had planned early in the war, was hurried
forward to completion; but no defences on the landward side
were erected, and no army was called out to defend it. What
was done was this: The District of Columbia, Maryland, and
that part of Virginia north of the Rappahannock, were created
a tenth military district under command of General W. H.
Winder, a brave officer, who had seen service in the
Northwest, and who had recently returned from long detention
in Canada as prisoner of war. General Winder on taking command
(June 26, 1814) found for the defence of Washington
detachments of the 36th and 38th regulars, amounting to a few
hundred men, but nothing more—no forts, no guns, no army. A
force of 13 regiments of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania
militia had been drafted, but were not to be called into
active service until the enemy should appear—an arrangement
against which General Winder protested in vain. … While these
weak and ineffectual preparations are being made, the enemy
has been marshalling his forces. Early in August Rear-Admiral
Cockburn's blockading squadron had been joined in the Potomac
by the fleet of Vice-Admiral Cochrane, who as ranking officer
at once took command." A few days later the expected Bermuda
expedition arrived bringing 4,000 troops—veterans from
Wellington's army—under General Ross. A little flotilla of
gunboats on the Chesapeake, commanded by Commodore Barney, was
driven into Patuxent River and there abandoned and burned.
Then the enemy landed in force at Benedict and marched on
Washington, while the Secretary or War still insisted that
Baltimore must be, in the nature of things, the place they
would strike, At Bladensburg they were met (August 24th) by
General Winder with some 5,000 hastily collected militia and
volunteers and less than 1,000 regular troops, sailors, and
marines—poor materials for an army with which to face 4,000
hardened veterans of the Peninsular War. The battle ended in
the utter routing of the American forces and the abandonment
of Washington to the British invaders.
C. B. Todd,
The Story of Washington,
chapter 8.
"This battle, by which the fate of the American capital was
decided, began about one o'clock in the afternoon, and lasted
till four. The loss on the part of the English was severe,
since, out of two-thirds of the army, which were engaged,
upwards of 500 men were killed and wounded; and what rendered
it doubly severe was, that among these were numbered several
officers of rank and distinction. … On the side of the
Americans the slaughter was not so great. Being in possession
of a strong position, they were of course less exposed in
defending than the others in storming it; and had they
conducted themselves with coolness and resolution, it is not
conceivable how the battle could have been won. But the fact
is that, with the exception of a party of sailors from the gun
boats, under the command of Commodore Barney, no troops could
behave worse than they did."
G. R. Gleig,
Campaign of the British Army at Washington and New Orleans,
chapter 9.
When Winder's troops abandoned Washington "fire was put at the
navy yard to a new frigate on the stocks, to a new
sloop-of-war lately launched, and to several magazines of
stores and provisions, for the destruction of which ample
preparations had been made. By the light of this fire, made
lurid by a sudden thunder-gust, Ross, toward evening, advanced
into Washington, at that time a straggling village of some
8,000 people, but, for the moment, almost deserted by the male
part of the white inhabitants. From Gallatin's late residence,
one of the first considerable houses which the column reached,
a shot was fired which killed Ross's horse, and which was
instantly revenged by putting fire to the house. After three
or four volleys at the Capitol, the two detached wings were
set on fire. The massive walls defied the flames, but all the
interior was destroyed, with many valuable papers, and the
library of Congress—a piece of Vandalism alleged to be in
revenge for the burning of the Parliament House at York.
[Chaplain Gleig, who was with the British forces under Ross,
states in the narrative quoted from above that the party fired
upon from Gallatin's house bore a flag of truce, and that
Ross's destructive proceedings in Washington were consequent
on that fact.] … The president's house, and the offices of the
Treasury and State Departments near by, were set on fire. …
The next morning the War Office was burned. …
{3353}
Several private houses were burned, and some private
warehouses broken open and plundered; but, in general, private
property was respected." On the night of the 20th the British
withdrew, returning as they came; but on the 29th their
frigates, ascending the Potomac, arrived at Alexandria and
plundered that city heavily. "Within less than a fortnight
after the re-embarkation of Ross's army, the British fleet,
spreading vast alarm as it ascended the Chesapeake, appeared
off the Patapsco [September 12]. … A landing was effected the
next day at North Point, on the northern shore of that
estuary, some eight miles up which was Fort M'Henry, an open
work only two miles from Baltimore, commanding the entrance
into the harbor, which found, however, its most effectual
protection in the shallowness of the water. The defense of the
city rested with some 10,000 militia. … A corps 3,000 strong
had been thrown forward toward North Point. As Ross and
Cockburn, at the head of a reconnoitering party, approached
the outposts of this advanced division, a skirmish ensued, in
which Ross was killed. … The fleet, meanwhile, opened a
tremendous cannonade on Fort M'Henry; but … at such a distance
as to render their fire ineffectual. It was under the
excitement of this cannonade that the popular song of the
'Star Spangled Banner' was composed, the author [Francis Scott
Key] being then on board the British fleet, whither he had
gone to solicit the release of certain prisoners, and where he
was detained pending the attack. An attempt to land in boats
also failed; and that same night, the bombardment being still
kept up, the British army, covered by rain and darkness,
retired silently to their ships and re-embarked."
R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
volume 6, pages 510-520.
ALSO IN:
J. S. Williams,
Invasion and Capture of Washington.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (September).
Prevost's invasion of New York.
Macdonough's naval victory on Lake Champlain.
Lake Champlain, "which had hitherto played but an
inconspicuous part, was now to become the scene of the
greatest naval battle of the war. A British army of 11,000 men
under Sir George Prevost undertook the invasion of New York by
advancing up the western bank of Lake Champlain. This advance
was impracticable unless there was a sufficiently strong
British naval force to drive back the American squadron at the
same time. Accordingly, the British began to construct a
frigate, the Confiance, to be added to their already existing
force, which consisted of a brig, two sloops, and 12 or 14
gun-boats. The Americans already possessed a heavy corvette, a
schooner, a small sloop, and 10 gun-boats or row-galleys; they
now began to build a large brig, the Eagle, which was launched
about the 16th of August. Nine days later, on the 25th, the
Confiance was launched. The two squadrons were equally
deficient in stores, etc.; the Confiance having locks to her
guns, some of which could not be used, while the American
schooner Ticonderoga had to fire her guns by means of pistols
flashed at the touchholes (like Barclay on Lake Erie).
Macdonough and Downie were hurried into action before they had
time to prepare themselves thoroughly; but it was a
disadvantage common to both, and arose from the nature of the
case, which called for immediate action. The British army
advanced slowly toward Plattsburg, which was held by General
Macomb with less than 2,000 effective American troops. Captain
Thomas Macdonough, the American commodore, took the lake a day
or two before his antagonist, and came to anchor in Plattsburg
harbor. The British fleet, under Captain George Downie, moved
from Isle-aux-Noix on September 8th, and on the morning of the
11th sailed into Plattsburg harbor." The American force
consisted of the ship Saratoga, Captain Macdonough, the brig
Eagle, the schooner Ticonderoga, the sloop Preble, and ten
row-galleys, or gunboats mounting one or two guns each—"in
all, 14 vessels of 2,244 tons and 882 men, with 86 guns
throwing at a broadside 1,194 lbs. of shot, 480 from long, and
714 from short guns. The force of the British squadron in guns
and ships is known accurately, as most of it was captured." It
consisted of the frigate Confiance, the brig Linnet, the
sloops Chubb and Finch, and twelve gunboats—"in all, 16
vessels, of about 2,402 tons, with 937 men, and a total of 92
guns, throwing at a broadside 1,192 lbs., 660 from long and
532 from short pieces. … Young Macdonough (then but 28 years
of age) calculated all … chances very coolly and decided to
await the attack at anchor in Plattsburg Bay, with the head of
his line so far to the north that it could hardly be turned. …
The morning of September 11th opened with a light breeze from
the northeast. Downie's fleet weighed anchor at daylight, and
came down the lake with the wind nearly aft, the booms of the
two sloops swinging out to starboard. At half-past seven, the
people in the ships could see their adversaries' upper sails
across the narrow strip of land ending in Cumberland Head,
before the British doubled the latter. … As the English
squadron stood bravely in, young Macdonough, who feared his
foes not at all, but his God a great deal, knelt for a moment,
with his officers, on the quarter-deck; and then ensued a few
minutes of perfect quiet." The fierce battle which followed
lasted about two hours and a half, with terribly destructive
effects on both sides. The British commander, Downie, was
killed early in the action. "On both sides the ships had been
cut up in the most extraordinary manner; the Saratoga had 55
shot-holes in her hull, and the Confiance 105 in hers, and the
Eagle and Linnet had suffered in proportion. The number of
killed and wounded can not be exactly stated; it was probably
about 200 on the American side, and over 300 on the British. …
The effects of the victory were immediate and of the highest
importance. Sir George Prevost and his army [which had arrived
before Plattsburg on the 6th, and which, simultaneously with
the naval advance, had made an unsuccessful attack on the
American defensive works, at the mouth of the Saranac, held by
General Alexander Macomb] at once fled in great haste and
confusion back to Canada, leaving our northern frontier clear
for the remainder of the war; while the victory had a very
great effect on the negotiations for peace. In this battle the
crews on both sides behaved with equal bravery, and left
nothing to be desired in this respect; but from their rawness
they of course showed far less skill than the crews of most of
the American and some of the British ocean cruisers. …
Macdonough in this battle won a higher fame than any other
commander of the war, British or American.
{3354}
He had a decidedly superior force to contend against, the
officers and men of the two sides being about on a par in
every respect; and it was solely owing to his foresight and
resource that we won the victory. He forced the British to
engage at a disadvantage by his excellent choice of position,
and he prepared beforehand for every possible contingency. …
Down to the time of the Civil War he is the greatest figure in
our naval history."
T. Roosevelt,
The Naval War of 1812,
chapter 8.
ALSO IN:
R. Johnson,
History of the War of 1812-1815,
chapter 15.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (December).
The Hartford Convention.
"The commercial distress in New England, the possession by the
enemy of a large part of the District of Maine, the fear of
their advance along the coast, and the apparent neglect of the
Federal Government to provide any adequate means of
resistance, had led the Legislature of Massachusetts, in
October, to invite the other New England States to send
delegates to Hartford, Connecticut, 'to confer upon the
subject of their public grievances.' Delegates [26 in number]
from Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut, and from
parts of Vermont and New Hampshire, met at Hartford in
December and remained in session for three weeks. In their
report to their State Legislatures they reviewed the state of
the country, the origin and management of the war, and the
strong measures lately proposed in Congress, and recommended
several Amendments to the Constitution, chiefly with intent to
restrict the powers of Congress over commerce, and to prevent
naturalized citizens from holding office. In default of the
adoption of these Amendments, another convention was advised,
'in order to decide on the course which a crisis so momentous
might seem to demand.' This was the famous Hartford
Convention. The peace which closely followed its adjournment
removed all necessity or even desire for another session of
it. Its objects seem to have been legitimate. But the
unfortunate secrecy of its proceedings, and its somewhat
ambiguous language, roused a popular suspicion, sufficient for
the political ruin of its members, that a dissolution of the
Union had been proposed, perhaps resolved upon, in its
meetings. Some years afterward those concerned in it were
compelled in self-defense to publish its journal, in order to
show that no treasonable design was officially proposed. It
was then, however, too late, for the popular opinion had
become fixed. Neither the Federal party which originated, nor
the Federalist politicians who composed, the assembly, were
ever freed from the stigma left by the mysterious Hartford
Convention."
A. Johnston,
History of American Politics, 2d ed.,
chapter 8.
The language of the report of the Hartford Convention "was so
skillfully selected that it cannot be said with certainty
whether the convention deduced from the nature of the Union a
positive right in the individual states to withdraw from the
Union, or whether it claimed only a moral justification for
revolution. It was prudent enough in the declaration of its
position on the constitutional question not to venture beyond
vague, double-meaning expressions, except so far as it could
appeal to its opponents. But it went just far enough to repeat
almost verbatim the declaration of faith laid down in the
Kentucky resolutions of 1798. If the members of the
convention, and those in sympathy with them, were 'Maratists,'
they could claim that they had become so in the school of
Madison and Jefferson."
H. von Holst,
Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
volume 1, page 268.
ALSO IN:
T. Dwight,
History of the Hartford Convention.
H. C. Lodge,
Life and Letters of George Cabot,
chapters 11-13.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (December).
The Treaty of Peace concluded at Ghent.
"In September, 1812, Count Romanzoff suggested to Mr. [John
Quincy] Adams the readiness of the Emperor [of Russia] to act
as mediator in bringing about peace between the United States
and England. The suggestion was promptly acted upon, but with
no directly fortunate results. The American government acceded
at once to the proposition, and, at the risk of an impolitic
display of readiness, dispatched Messrs. Gallatin and Bayard
to act as Commissioners jointly with Mr. Adams in the
negotiations. These gentlemen, however, arrived in St.
Petersburg only to find themselves in a very awkward
position," since the offered mediation of the Czar was
declined by England. The latter power preferred to negotiate
directly with the United States, and presently made proposals
to that effect, intimating her readiness "to send
Commissioners to Gottingen, for which place Ghent was
afterwards substituted, to meet American Commissioners and
settle terms of pacification. The United States renewed the
powers of Messrs. Adams, Bayard, and Gallatin, … and added
Jonathan Russell, then Minister to Sweden, and Henry Clay.
England deputed Lord Gambier, an Admiral, Dr. Adams, a
publicist, and Mr. Goulbourn, a member of Parliament and Under
Secretary of State. These eight gentlemen accordingly met in
Ghent on August 7, 1814. It was upwards of four months before
an agreement was reached. … The eight were certainly an odd
assemblage of peacemakers. The ill-blood and wranglings
between the opposing Commissions were bad enough, yet hardly
equalled the intestine dissensions between the American
Commissioners themselves. … The British first presented their
demands, as follows: 1. That the United States should conclude
a peace with the Indian allies of Great Britain, and that a
species of neutral belt of Indian territory should be
established between the dominions of the United States and
Great Britain, so that these dominions should be nowhere
conterminous, upon which belt or barrier neither power should
be permitted to encroach even by purchase, and the boundaries
of which should be settled in this treaty. 2. That the United
States should keep no naval force upon the Great Lakes, and
should neither maintain their existing forts nor build new
ones upon their northern frontier; it was even required that
the boundary line should run along the southern shore of the
lakes; while no corresponding restriction was imposed upon
Great Britain, because she was stated to have no projects of
conquest as against her neighbor. 3. That a piece of the
province of Maine should be ceded, in order to give the
English a road from Halifax to Quebec. 4. That the
stipulations of the treaty of 1783, conferring on English
subjects the right of navigating the Mississippi, should be
now formally renewed. The Americans were astounded; it seemed
to them hardly worth while to have come so far to listen to
such propositions."
{3355}
But, after long and apparently hopeless wrangling, events in
Europe rather than in America brought about a change of
disposition on the part of the British government;
instructions to the commissioners were modified on both sides,
and, quite to their own surprise, they arrived at agreements
which were formulated in a Treaty and signed, December 24,
1814. "Of the many subjects mooted between the negotiators
scarcely any had survived the fierce contests which had been
waged concerning them. The whole matter of the navigation of
the Mississippi, access to that river, and a road through
American territory, had been dropped by the British; while the
Americans had been well content to say nothing of the
Northeastern fisheries, which they regarded as still their
own.
See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1814-1818.
The disarmament on the lakes and along the Canadian border,
and the neutralization of a strip of Indian territory, were
yielded by the English. The Americans were content to have
nothing said about impressment; nor was anyone of the many
illegal rights exercised by England formally abandoned. The
Americans satisfied themselves with the reflection that
circumstances had rendered these points now only matters of
abstract principle, since the pacification of Europe had
removed all opportunities and temptations for England to
persist in her previous objectionable courses. For the future
it was hardly to be feared that she would again undertake to
pursue a policy against which it was evident that the United
States were willing to conduct a serious war. There was,
however, no provision for indemnification. Upon a fair
consideration, it must be admitted that, though the treaty was
silent upon all the points which the United States had made
war for the purpose of enforcing, yet the country had every
reason to be gratified with the result of the negotiation."
J. T. Morse,
John Quincy Adams,
pages 75-96.
"Instead of wearing themselves out over impracticable, perhaps
impossible, questions, the commissioners turned their
attention to the northern boundary between the two countries,
and it was by them forever settled, and in such manner as to
give the United States the foundation for its future
greatness. … The victory of the American diplomats at Ghent
was two-fold: first, they secured the benefits desired without
enumerating them—even to a greater extent than if the benefits
had been enumerated; and second, if they had insisted upon an
enumeration of the benefits obtained, it is apparent they
would have periled the entire treaty and lost all."
T. Wilson,
The Treaty of Ghent
(Magazine of American History, November, 1888).
ALSO IN:
C. Schurz,
Life of Henry Clay,
chapter 6 (volume l).
J. Q. Adams,
Memoirs (Diary)
chapter 9 (volumes 2-3).
Following is the text of the treaty:
Article I.
There shall be a firm and universal peace between His
Britannic Majesty and the United States, and between their
respective countries, territories, cities, towns, and people,
of every degree, without exception of places or persons. All
hostilities, both by sea and land, shall cease as soon as this
treaty shall have been ratified by both parties, as
hereinafter mentioned. All territory, places, and possessions
whatsoever, taken by either party from the other during the
war, or which may be taken after the signing of this treaty,
excepting only the islands hereinafter mentioned, shall be
restored without delay, and without causing any destruction or
carrying away any of the artillery or other public property
originally captured in the said forts or places, and which
shall remain therein upon the exchange of the ratifications of
this treaty, or any slaves or other private property. And all
archives, records, deeds, and papers, either of a public
nature or belonging to private persons, which, in the course
of the war, may have fallen into the hands of the officers of
either party, shall be, as far as may be practicable,
forthwith restored and delivered to the proper authorities and
persons to whom they respectively belong. Such of the islands
in the Bay of Passamaquoddy as are claimed by both parties,
shall remain in the possession of the party in whose
occupation they may be at the time of the exchange of the
ratifications of this treaty, until the decision respecting
the title to the said islands shall have been made in
conformity with the fourth article of this treaty. No
disposition made by this treaty as to such possession of the
islands and territories claimed by both parties shall, in any
manner whatever, be construed to affect the right of either.
Article II.
Immediately after the ratification of this treaty by both
parties, as hereinafter mentioned, orders shall be sent to the
armies, squadrons, officers, subjects and citizens of the two
Powers to cease from all hostilities. And to prevent all
causes of complaint which might arise on account of the prizes
which may be taken at sea after the said ratifications of this
treaty, it is reciprocally agreed that all vessels and effects
which may be taken after the space of twelve days from the
said ratifications, upon all parts of the coast of North
America, from the latitude of twenty-three degrees north to
the latitude of fifty degrees north, and as far eastward in
the Atlantic Ocean as the thirty-sixth degree of west
longitude from the meridian of Greenwich, shall be restored on
each side: that the time shall be thirty days in all other
parts of the Atlantic Ocean north of the equinoctial line or
equator, and the same time for the British and Irish Channels,
for the Gulf of Mexico, and all parts of the West Indies;
forty days for the North Seas, for the Baltic, and for all
parts of the Mediterranean; sixty days for the Atlantic Ocean
south of the equator, as far as the latitude of the Cape of
Good Hope; ninety days for every other part of the world south
of the equator; and one hundred and twenty days for all other
parts of the world, without exception.
Article III.
All prisoners of war taken on either side, as well by land as
by sea, shall be restored as soon as practicable after the
ratifications of this treaty, as hereinafter mentioned, on
their paying the debts which they may have contracted during
their captivity. The two contracting parties respectively
engage to discharge, in specie, the advances which may have
been made by the other for the sustenance and maintenance of
such prisoners.
{3356}
Article IV.
Whereas it was stipulated by the second article in the treaty
of peace of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three,
between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of
America, that the boundary of the United States should
comprehend all islands within twenty leagues of any part of
the shores of the United States, and lying between lines to be
drawn due east from the points where the aforesaid boundaries,
between Nova Scotia on the one part, and East Florida on the
other, shall respectively touch the Bay of Fundy and the
Atlantic Ocean, excepting such islands as now are, or
heretofore have been, within the limits of Nova Scotia; and
whereas the several islands in the Bay of Passamaquoddy, which
is part of the Bay of Fundy, and the Island of Grand Menan, in
the said Bay of Fundy, are claimed by the United States as
being comprehended within their aforesaid boundaries, which
said islands are claimed as belonging to His Britannic
Majesty, as having been, at the time of and previous to the
aforesaid treaty of one thousand seven hundred and
eighty-three, within the limits of the Province of Nova
Scotia: In order, therefore, finally to decide upon these
claims, it is agreed that they shall be referred to two
Commissioners to be appointed in the following manner, viz:
One Commissioner shall be appointed by His Britannic Majesty,
and one by the President of the United States, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate thereof; and the said two
Commissioners so appointed shall be sworn impartially to
examine and decide upon the said claims according to such
evidence as shall be laid before them on the part of His
Britannic Majesty and of the United States respectively. The
said Commissioners shall meet at St. Andrews, in the Province
of New Brunswick, and shall have power to adjourn to such
other place or places as they shall think fit. The said
Commissioners shall, by a declaration or report under their
hands and seals, decide to which of the two contracting
parties the several islands aforesaid do respectively belong,
in conformity with the true intent of the said treaty of peace
of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three. And if the
said Commissioners shall agree in their decision, both parties
shall consider such decision as final and conclusive. It is
further agreed that, in event of the two Commissioners
differing upon all or any of the matters so referred to them,
or in the event of both or either of the said Commissioners
refusing, or declining, or wilfully omitting to act as such,
they shall make, jointly or separately, a report or reports,
as well to the Government of His Britannic Majesty as to that
of the United States, stating in detail the points on which
they differ, and the grounds upon which their respective
opinions have been formed, or the grounds upon which they, or
either of them, have so refused, declined, or omitted to act.
And His Britannic Majesty and the Government of the United
States hereby agree to refer the report or reports of the said
Commissioners to some friendly sovereign or State, to be then
named for that purpose, and who shall be requested to decide
on the differences which may be stated in the said report or
reports, or upon the report of one Commissioner, together with
the grounds upon which the other Commissioner shall have
refused, declined or omitted to act, as the case may be. And
if the Commissioner so refusing, declining or omitting to act,
shall also wilfully omit to state the grounds upon which he
has so done, in such manner that the said statement may be
referred to such friendly sovereign or State, together with
the report of such other Commissioner, then such sovereign or
State shall decide ex parte upon the said report alone. And
His Britannic Majesty and the Government of the United States
engage to consider the decision of such friendly sovereign or
State to be final and conclusive on all the matters so
referred.
Article V.
Whereas neither that point of the highlands lying due north
from the source of the river St. Croix, and designated in the
former treaty of peace between the two Powers as the northwest
angle of Nova Scotia, nor the north-westernmost head of
Connecticut River, has yet been ascertained; and whereas that
part of the boundary line between the dominions of the two
Powers which extends from the source of the river St. Croix
directly north to the above mentioned northwest angle of Nova
Scotia, thence along the said highlands which divide those
rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from
those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean to the northwestern
most head of Connecticut River, thence down along the middle
of that river to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude;
thence by a line due west on said latitude until it strikes
the river Iroquois or Cataraquy, has not yet been surveyed: it
is agreed that for these several purposes two Commissioners
shall be appointed, sworn, and authorized to act exactly in
the manner directed with respect to those mentioned in the
next preceding article, unless otherwise specified in the
present article. The said Commissioners shall meet at St.
Andrews, in the Province of New Brunswick, and shall have
power to adjourn to such other place or places as they shall
think fit. The said Commissioners shall have power to
ascertain and determine the points above mentioned, in
conformity with the provisions of the said treaty of peace of
one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, and shall cause
the boundary aforesaid, from the source of the river St. Croix
to the river Iroquois or Cataraquy, to be surveyed and marked
according to the said provisions. The said Commissioners shall
make a map of the said boundary, and annex to it a declaration
under their hands and seals, certifying it to be the true map
of the said boundary, and particularizing the latitude and
longitude of the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, of the
northwesternmost head of Connecticut River, and of such other
points of the said boundary as they may deem proper. And both
parties agree to consider such map and declaration as finally
and conclusively fixing the said boundary. And in the event of
the said two Commissioners differing, or both or either of
them refusing, declining, or wilfully omitting to act, such
reports, declarations, or statements shall be made by them, or
either of them, and such reference to a friendly sovereign or
State shall be made in all respects as in the latter part of
the fourth article is contained, and in as full a manner as if
the same was herein repeated.
{3357}
Article VI.
Whereas by the former treaty of peace that portion of the
boundary of the United States from the point where the
forty-fifth degree of north latitude strikes the river
Iroquois or Cataraquy to the Lake Superior, was declared to be
"along the middle of said river into Lake Ontario, through the
middle of said lake, until it strikes the communication by
water between that lake and Lake Erie, thence along the middle
of said communication into Lake Erie, through the middle of said
lake until it arrives at the water communication into the Lake
Huron, thence through the middle of said lake to the water
communication between that lake and Lake Superior;" and
whereas doubts have arisen what was the middle of the said
river, lakes, and water communications, and whether certain
islands lying in the same were within the dominions of His
Britannic Majesty or of the United States: In order,
therefore, finally to decide these doubts, they shall be
referred to two Commissioners, to be appointed, sworn, and
authorized to act exactly in the manner directed with respect
to those mentioned in the next preceding article, unless
otherwise specified in this present article. The said
Commissioners shall meet, in the first instance, at Albany, in
the State of New York, and shall have power to adjourn to such
other place or places as they shall think fit. The said
Commissioners shall, by a report or declaration, under their
hands and seals, designate the boundary through the said
river, lakes and water communications, and decide to which of
the two contracting parties the several islands lying within
the said rivers, lakes, and water communications, do
respectively belong, in conformity with the true intent of the
said treaty of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three.
And both parties agree to consider such designation and
decision as final and conclusive. And in the event of the said
two Commissioners differing, or both or either of them
refusing, declining, or wilfully omitting to act, such
reports, declarations, or statements shall be made by them, or
either of them, and such reference to a friendly sovereign or
State shall be made in all respects as in the latter part of
the fourth article is contained, and in as full a manner as if
the same was herein repeated.
Article VII.
It is further agreed that the said two last-mentioned
Commissioners, after they shall have executed the duties
assigned to them in the preceding article, shall be, and they
are hereby, authorized upon their oaths impartially to fix and
determine, according to the true intent of the said treaty of
peace of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, that
part of the boundary between the dominions of the two Powers
which extends from the water communication between Lake Huron
and Lake Superior, to the most northwestern point of the Lake
of the Woods, to decide to which of the two parties the
several islands lying in the lakes, water communications, and
rivers, forming the said boundary, do respectively belong, in
conformity with the true intent of the said treaty of peace of
one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three; and to cause such
parts of the said boundary as require it to be surveyed and
marked. The said Commissioners shall, by a report or
declaration under their hands and seals, designate the
boundary aforesaid, state their decision on the points thus
referred to them, and particularize the latitude and longitude
of the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods, and
of such other parts of the said boundary as they may deem
proper. And both parties agree to consider such designation
and decision as final and conclusive. And in the event of the
said two Commissioners differing, or both or either of them
refusing, declining, or wilfully omitting to act, such
reports, declarations, or statements shall be made by them, or
either of them, and such reference to a friendly sovereign or
State shall be made in all respects as in the latter part of
the fourth article is contained, and in as full a manner as if
the same was herein repeated.
Article VIII.
The several boards of two Commissioners mentioned in the four
preceding articles shall respectively have power to appoint a
Secretary, and to employ such surveyors or other persons as
they shall judge necessary. Duplicates of all their respective
reports, declarations, statements and decisions and of their
accounts, and of the journal of their proceedings, shall be
delivered by them to the agents of His Britannic Majesty and
to the agents of the United States, who may be respectively
appointed and authorized to manage the business on behalf of
their respective Governments. The said Commissioners shall be
respectively paid in such manner as shall be agreed between
the two contracting parties, such agreement being to be
settled at the time of the exchange of the ratifications of
this treaty. And all other expenses attending the said
Commissions shall be defrayed equally by the two parties. And
in the case of death, sickness, resignation or necessary
absence, the place of every such Commissioner, respectively,
shall be supplied in the same manner as such Commissioner was
first appointed, and the new Commissioner shall take the same
oath or affirmation, and do the same duties. It is further
agreed between the two contracting parties, that in case any
of the islands mentioned in any of the preceding articles,
which were in the possession of one of the parties prior to
the commencement of the present war between the two countries,
should, by the decision of any of the Boards of Commissioners
aforesaid, or of the sovereign or State so referred to, as in
the four next preceding articles contained, fall within the
dominions of the other party, all grants of land made previous
to the commencement of the war, by the party having had such
possession, shall be as valid as if such island or islands
had, by such decision or decisions, been adjudged to be within
the dominions of the party having had such possession.
Article IX.
The United States of America engage to put an end, immediately
after the ratification of the present treaty, to hostilities
with all the tribes or nations of Indians with whom they may
be at war at the time of such ratification; and forthwith to
restore to such tribes or nations, respectively, all the
possessions, rights and privileges which they may have enjoyed
or been entitled to in one thousand eight hundred and eleven,
previous to such hostilities: Provided always that such tribes
or nations shall agree to desist from all hostilities against
the United States of America, their citizens and subjects,
upon the ratification of the present treaty being notified to
such tribes or nations, and shall so desist accordingly. And
His Britannic Majesty engages, on his part, to put an end
immediately after the ratification of the present treaty, to
hostilities with all the tribes or nations of Indians with
whom he may be at war at the time of such ratification, and
forthwith to restore to such tribes or nations respectively
all the possessions, rights and privileges which they may have
enjoyed or been entitled to in one thousand eight hundred and
eleven, previous to such hostilities: Provided always that
such tribes or nations shall agree to desist from all
hostilities against His Britannic Majesty, and his subjects,
upon the ratification of the present treaty being notified to
such tribes or nations, and shall so desist accordingly.
{3358}
Article X.
Whereas the traffic in slaves is irreconcilable with the
principles of humanity and justice, and whereas both His
Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their
efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed
that both the contracting parties shall use their best
endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object.
Article XI.
This treaty, when the same shall have been ratified on both
sides, without alteration by either of the contracting
parties, and the ratifications mutually exchanged, shall be
binding on both parties and the ratifications shall be
exchanged at Washington, in the space of four months from this
day, or sooner if practicable. In faith whereof we, the
respective Plenipotentiaries, have signed this treaty, and
have thereunto affixed our seals. Done, in triplicate, at
Ghent, the twenty-fourth day of December, one thousand eight
hundred and fourteen.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814.
The last fighting at Sea.
The exploits of "Old Ironsides."
"During the latter part of the war, as might have been
foreseen, there was little opportunity for American frigates
to show that they could keep up the fame they had so
gloriously won. The British were determined that none of them
that ventured out to sea should escape; and by stationing a
squadron, which their great resources enabled them to do,
before each port where a frigate lay, they succeeded in
keeping it cooped up and inactive. … The 'Adams,' which had
been a 28-gun frigate, but which was now a corvette, managed
to slip out from Washington in January, 1814, under the
command of Charles Morris. … Six months were passed in
cruising, part of the time off the Irish coast, but with no
great success." Returning home, the "Adams" went ashore at the
mouth of the Penobscot, but was got off, much injured, and was
taken up the river for repairs. An English expeditionary force
pursued the crippled vessel, and her commander was forced to
set her on fire. "At this time the 'Constitution' [Old
Ironsides, as she was popularly called] was … lying at Boston,
watched by a squadron of the enemy. She had proved a lucky
ship, … and her present captain, Charles Stewart, who had been
one of Preble's lieutenants at Tripoli, was certainly a man
well fitted to make the most of any chance he had. The frigate
had been in port since April, at first repairing, and later
unable to get out owing to the presence of the enemy's
squadron." In December, however, the " Constitution" contrived
to give the blockaders the slip and made her way across the
Atlantic to the neighborhood of Madeira, where she fought and
captured, at one time, two British war vessels—the corvette
"Cyana" of 22 guns, and the sloop "Levant," of 20 guns. A few
days afterwards, as the "Constitution," with her two prizes,
was lying at anchor in Port Praya, Cape de Verde Islands,
Captain Stewart sighted, outside, no less than three ships of
the very blockading squadron which he had slipped away from at
Boston, and which had pursued him across the ocean. He made
his escape from the port, with both his prizes, in time to
avoid being hemmed in, and speedily outsailed his pursuers.
The latter, giving up hope of the "Constitution," turned their
attention to one of the prizes and succeeded in recovering
her. "The only other frigate that left port in the last year
of the war was less fortunate than the 'Constitution.' This
was the 'President,' now under Commodore Decatur. She was at
New York, and for some time had lain at anchor off Staten
Island watching for an opportunity to pass the blockading
squadron." On a stormy night in January, 1815 (after the
treaty of peace had been actually signed at Ghent, but before
news of it had reached America), he made the attempt, but was
discovered and chased by four of the blockading ships. After a
race which lasted from dawn until nearly midnight, and a
running fight of two hours, Decatur found escape to be
impossible and surrendered his ship.
J. R. Soley,
The Boys of 1812,
chapter 17.
ALSO IN:
T. Roosevelt,
The Naval War of 1812,
chapters 7-9.
B. J. Lossing,
Field Book of the War of 1812,
chapter 41.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1815 (January).
Jackson's victory at New Orleans.
In October of the last year "dispatches from the American
envoys abroad announced that 12,000 to 15,000 British troops
would leave Ireland early in September for New Orleans and
Mobile. Intelligence reached Washington, December 9th, by way
of Cuba, that the British Chesapeake force, under Admiral
Cochrane, had united at Jamaica with these other troops, and
all were ready to sail for the mouths of the Mississippi.
'Hasten your militia to New Orleans,' now urged Monroe upon
the Executives of Tennessee, Kentucky, and Georgia; 'do not
wait for this government to arm them; put all the arms you can
find into their hands; let every man bring his rifle or musket
with him; we shall see you paid.' … Great results had been
expected by Great Britain from the secret expedition fitted
out against Louisiana. … Fifty British vessels, large and
small, bore 7,000 British land troops—comprising the invading
force from the Chesapeake and a veteran reinforcement from
England—across the Gulf of Mexico from Jamaica to the ship
channel near the entrance of Lake Borgne, thus approaching New
Orleans midway between the Mississippi River and Mobile Bay.
Here the fleet anchored; and, after dispersing a meagre
flotilla of American gunboats, which opposed their progress in
vain, the invaders took full possession of Lake Borgne, and,
by means of lighter transports, landed troops upon a lonely
island at the mouth of the Pearl River, which served as the
military rendezvous. Crossing thence to the northwestern end
of Lake Borgne, a sparsely-settled region, with plantations
and sugar-works, half of this invading army, by the 23d
[December], struck the Mississippi at a point within nine
miles of New Orleans. Not a gun had been fired since the
trifling engagement with the American flotilla. The British
believed their near approach unknown, and even unsuspected, in
the city; they meant to capture it by an assault both
brilliant and sudden. … But Jackson had received his
instructions in good season, and from the 2d of December New
Orleans had been, under his vigilant direction, a camp in
lively motion." Martial law was proclaimed; "free men of color
were enrolled; convicts were released to become soldiers; the
civic force was increased to its utmost.
{3359}
Jackson inspected and strengthened the defences in the
vicinity, erect·ing new batteries. … With his newly arrived
volunteers from neighboring States, quite expert, many of
them, in the use of the rifle and eager for fight, Jackson
found himself presently at the head of 5,000 effective men,
less than 1,000 of whom were regulars." With a portion of
these, supported by one of the two armed vessels on the river,
he boldly attacked the enemy, on the evening of the 23d, but
accomplished little more than to demonstrate the energy of the
defence he was prepared to make. On the 28th the English
(having previously destroyed one of the troublesome vessels in
the river, the Carolina, with hot shot) returned the attack,
but did not break the American lines. Then General Pakenham,
the English commander, brought up heavy guns from the fleet,
and soon convinced General Jackson that cotton bales, which
the latter had piled up before his men, were too light and too
combustible for breastworks against artillery; but the lesson
proved more useful than otherwise, and the British batteries
were answered with fully equal effect by an American
cannonade. "Pakenham's last and boldest experiment was to
carry Jackson's lines by storm on both sides of the river; and
this enterprise, fatal, indeed, to those who conceived it,
gives immortal date to the 8th of January,—the day on which
the battle of New Orleans was fought. Four days before this
momentous battle, over 2,000 Kentucky militia, under General
Adair, arrived at New Orleans, ready soldiers, but miserably
equipped. Of their number 700 were marched to the front.
Pakenham's army, swelled by a body of reinforcements,
commanded by General Lambert, another of Wellington's
officers, now consisted in all of 10,000 troops, the flower of
Brit·ish veterans. On the day of the battle Jackson had only
half as many soldiers on the New Orleans side of the river,
and of these the greater part were new recruits under
inexperienced officers. On the opposite bank General Morgan,
with about 1,500 men, among them detachments of Kentuckians
and Louisiana militia, had intrenched himself in expectation
of an assault. Jackson had penetrated the enemy's design,
which was to make the main attack upon his lines, while a
lesser force crossed the Mississippi to drive Morgan up the
bank. Jackson's grand defences, extending for a mile and a
half from the Mississippi, along his ditch or canal, to an
impassable cypress swamp, consisted of earthworks, a redoubt
next the river to enfilade the ditch, and eight batteries, all
well mounted. The schooner Louisiana and Commander Patterson's

marine battery across the river protected this line. Another
intrenchment had been thrown up a mile and a half in the rear,
as a rallying-point in case of need. There was a third line
just below the city. … The morn·ing fog rolled away on the 8th
of January. Pakenham, under the fire of a battery he had
erected during the night, advanced with the main body of
British troops to storm Jackson's position." The Americans,
behind their breastworks, withheld their fire until the
storming columns were 200 yards away, and then poured volley
on volley into the approaching mass of men. "This, with the
steady fire from the American batteries all along the line, as
the foe advanced over a large bare plain, made hideous gaps in
the British ranks, throwing them into utter confusion. It was
a fearful slaughter. Dead bodies choked the ditch and strewed
the plain. Gallant Highlanders flung themselves forward to
scale the ramparts only to fall back lifeless. Soldiers who
had served under Wellington in Spain broke, scattered, and
ran. Of the four British generals commanding, Pakenham was
killed, Gibbs mortally wounded, Keane disabled by a shot in
the neck; only Lambert remained. Thornton, across the river,
had driven Morgan from his lines meantime, and silenced
Patterson's battery; but this enterprise might have cost him
dearly, had he not in season received orders from Lambert to
return instantly. In this battle the British lost not less
than 2,600, all but 500 of whom were killed or wounded; while
only 8 were killed and 13 wounded on the American side. Having
buried his dead presently under a flag of truce, Lambert, whom
this calamity had placed in command, retreated hastily under
cover of the night, abandoning the expedition. Re-embarking at
Lake Borgne, and rejoining the fleet, he next proceeded to
invest Fort Bowyer, at the entrance of Mobile Bay, only to
learn, after its little garrison had surrendered, that a
treaty of peace [signed December 24, 1814, two weeks before
the battle of New Orleans was fought] annulled the conquest. …
Rude and illiterate as he was, Jackson showed at New Orleans
the five prime attributes of military genius: decision,
energy, forethought, dispatch, skill in employing resources."
J. Schouler,
History of the United States of America,
chapter 9, section 1 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
A. Walker,
Jackson and New Orleans.
J. Parton,
Life of Andrew Jackson,
volume 2, chapters 1-23.
G. R. Gleig,
Campaigns of the British Army at Washington and New Orleans,
chapters 18-23.
M. Thompson,
The Story of Louisiana,
chapter 9.
G. W. Cable,
The Creoles of Louisiana,
chapters 26-27.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1815.
Final war with the Algerines and suppression of their piracies.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1815.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816.
Incorporation of the second Bank of the United States.
See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1791-1816; and 1817-1833.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816.
Admission of Indiana into the Union.
See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816.
The increased Tariff.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816.
Organization of the American Colonization Society.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1816-1849.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816.
Eighth Presidential Election.
James Monroe, Democratic Republican, was elected over Rufus
King, Federalist, receiving 183 out of 217 votes cast in the
electoral college. Daniel D. Tompkins was chosen Vice
President. "Opposition to the War of 1812 proved fatal to the
Federal party, which ceased to exist as a national party with
the close of Mr. Madison's administration. Not only did the
odium of opposing the war tend to annihilate that party, but
the questions upon which the two parties differed were, in a
great measure, settled or disposed of by the war; others,
relating to the general interests of the country, such as a
tariff, internal improvements, the chartering of a national
bank, erecting fortifications, etc., taking their place, and
finding advocates and opponents in both the old parties.
Candidates for President and Vice-President were then selected
by the respective parties by what was termed a Congressional
caucus.
{3360}
Mr. Monroe was placed in nomination for President by a caucus
of the Republican members of Congress, Daniel D. Tompkins, of
New York, being nominated by the same caucus for
Vice-President. Mr. Crawford, of Georgia, was Mr. Monroe's
competitor, and fell but few votes behind him in the caucus.
Rufus King was the candidate of the Federal party, or what
there was left of it, against Mr. Monroe. The latter received
183 electoral votes, the former 34. No President ever
encountered less opposition during his four or eight years'
service than Mr. Monroe. Parties and the country seemed to be
tired of contention, and desirous to enjoy repose. A most able
cabinet was selected, consisting of Mr. J. Q. Adams as
Secretary of State; William H. Crawford, Secretary of the
Treasury; John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War; Smith Thompson,
Secretary of the Navy; and William Wirt, Attorney-General."
N. Sargent,
Public Men and Events, 1817-1853,
volume 1, chapter 1.
"Remembering only the almost unopposed election and second
election of Mr. Monroe, we are apt to think of him as the
natural and easy choice of the people. As a matter of fact he
was not a great favorite with Republican politicians. He was
first nominated by a narrow majority. … Numerous meetings were
held in various parts of the country to protest against the
caucus system, the most noteworthy of which, perhaps, was held
in Baltimore, in which meeting Roger B. Taney, afterward Chief
Justice, took a most prominent part. The nomination being
made, the presidential election was practically decided. There
was no canvass, worthy of the name."
E. Stanwood,
History of Presidential Elections,
chapter 9.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816-1817.
The opening of the question of "Internal Improvements."
"The passage of the bank bill in 1816 was to give the United
States a million and a half of dollars. Calhoun, therefore,
came forward, December 23, 1816, with a bill proposing that
this sum be employed as a fund 'for constructing roads and
canals and improving the navigation of watercourses.' 'We
are,' said he, 'a rapidly—I was about to say a
fearfully—growing country. … This is our pride and danger, our
weakness and our strength.' The constitutional question he
settled with a phrase: 'If we are restricted in the use of our
money to the enumerated powers, on what principle can the
purchase of Louisiana be justified?' The bill passed the House
by 86 to 84; it was strongly supported by New York members,
because it was expected that the general government would
begin the construction of a canal from Albany to the Lakes; it
had also large support in the South, especially in South
Carolina. In the last hours of his administration Madison
vetoed it. His message shows that he had selected this
occasion to leave to the people a political testament; he was
at last alarmed by the progress of his own party, and, like
Jefferson, he insisted that internal improvements were
desirable, but needed a constitutional amendment. The
immediate effect of the veto was that New York, seeing no
prospect of federal aid, at once herself began the
construction of the Erie Canal, which was opened eight years
later."
A. B. Hart,
Formation of the Union
(Epochs of American History),
section 121.
"Mr. Monroe came out, in his first message to Congress,
coinciding, on this point, with Mr. Madison's veto. It is due
to both of them, however, to say that they were the advocates
of internal improvement, and recommended an amendment of the
constitution with that view. Nevertheless, Mr. Madison, by his
veto, had dashed the cup from the lips to the ground, as he
went out of office; and Mr. Monroe coming in, at least for
four years, probably for eight—it proved to be eight—broke the
cup in advance, so that it could not be used during his term
of office, without an amendment of the constitution. … Three
presidents successively, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, and Mr.
Monroe, had officially expressed their opinion adverse to a
power vested in Congress by the constitution for projects of
internal improvement, as contemplated by the measures
proposed. Not satisfied with these decisions, Mr. Clay and his
friends were instrumental in having a resolution brought
forward, in the fifteenth Congress, declaring that Congress
had power, under the constitution, to make appropriations for
the construction of military roads, post-roads, and canals. …
The resolution declaring the power to be vested in Congress by
the constitution, to make appropriations for the construction
of military roads, post-roads, and canals, was adopted by a
vote of 90 to 75; and the principle involved has been
practically applied by acts of Congress, from that time to the
present."
C. Colton,
Life, Correspondence, and Speeches of Henry Clay,
volume 1, chapter 19.
ALSO IN:
H. G. Wheeler,
History of Congress, comprising a
History of Internal Improvements,
volume 2, page 109, and after.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816-1818.
The First Seminole War.
Jackson's arbitrary conquest of Florida.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1817.
Admission of Mississippi into the Union.
See MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1817.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818.
Treaty with Great Britain relating to Fisheries.
See FISHERIES: A. D. 1814-1818.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818.
Admission of Illinois into the Union.
See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1819.
The Dartmouth College Case.
See SUPPLEMENT: DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.
The first bitter Conflict concerning Slavery.
The Missouri Compromise,
on the admission of Missouri to the Union.
"On March 6, 1818, a petition was presented in the House of
Representatives praying that Missouri be admitted as a state.
A bill authorizing the people of Missouri to form a state
government was taken up in the House on February 13, 1819, and
Tallmadge of New York moved, as an amendment, that the further
introduction of slavery should be prohibited, and that all
children born within the said state should be free at the age
of twenty-five years. Thus began the struggle on the slavery
question in connection with the admission of Missouri, which
lasted, intermittently, until March, 1821. No sooner had the
debate on Tallmadge's proposition begun than it became clear
that the philosophical anti-slavery sentiment of the
revolutionary period had entirely ceased to have any influence
upon current thought in the South.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1776-1808.
The abolition of the foreign slave-trade had not, as had been
hoped, prepared the way for the abolition of slavery or
weakened the slave interest in any sense. On the contrary,
slavery had been immensely strengthened by an economic
development making it more profitable than it ever had been
before. The invention of the cotton-gin by Eli Whitney, in
1793, had made the culture of cotton a very productive source
of wealth.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793.
{3361}
In 1800 the exportation of cotton from the United States was
19,000,000 pounds, valued at $5,700,000. In 1820 the value of
the cotton export was nearly $20,000,000, almost all of it the
product of slave labor. The value of slaves may be said to
have at least trebled in twenty years. The breeding of slaves
became a profitable industry. Under such circumstances the
slave-holders arrived at the conclusion that slavery was by no
means so wicked and hurtful an institution as their
revolutionary fathers had thought it to be. … On the other
hand, in the Northern States there was no such change of
feeling. Slavery was still, in the nature of things, believed
to be a wrong and a sore. … The amendment to the Missouri
bill, providing for a restriction with regard to slavery, came
therefore in a perfectly natural way from that Northern
sentiment which remained still faithful to the traditions of
the revolutionary period. And it was a great surprise to most
Northern people that so natural a proposition should be so
fiercely resisted on the part of the South. It was the sudden
revelation of a change of feeling in the South which the North
had not observed in its progress. 'The discussion of this
Missouri question has betrayed the secret of their souls,'
wrote John Quincy Adams. The slave-holders watched with
apprehension the steady growth of the Free States in
population, wealth, and power. In 1790 the population of the
two sections had been nearly even. In 1820 there was a
difference of over 600,000 in favor of the North in a total of
less than ten millions. In 1790 the representation of the two
sections in Congress had been about evenly balanced. In 1820
the census promised to give the North a preponderance of more
than 30 votes in the House of Representatives. As the
slave-holders had no longer the ultimate extinction, but now
the perpetuation, of slavery in view, the question of
sectional power became one of first importance to them, and
with it the necessity of having more Slave States for the
purpose of maintaining the political equilibrium at least in
the Senate. A struggle for more Slave States was to them a
struggle for life. This was the true significance of the
Missouri question. The debate was the prototype of all the
slavery debates which followed in the forty years to the
breaking out of the civil war. … The dissolution of the Union,
civil war, and streams of blood were freely threatened by
Southern men, while some anti-slavery men declared themselves
ready to accept all these calamities rather than the spread of
slavery over the territories yet free from it. … On February
16, 1819, the House of Representatives adopted the amendment
restricting slavery, and thus passed the Missouri bill. But
the Senate, eleven days afterwards, struck out the
anti-slavery provision and sent the bill back to the House. A
bill was then passed organizing the Territory of Arkansas, an
amendment moved by Taylor of New York prohibiting the further
introduction of slavery there having been voted down. … Thus
slavery was virtually fastened on Arkansas. But the Missouri
bill failed in the fifteenth Congress. The popular excitement
steadily increased. The sixteenth Congress met in December,
1819. In the Senate the admission of Missouri with slavery was
coupled with the admission of Maine, on the balance-of-power
principle that one free state and one slave state should
always be admitted at the same time. An amendment was moved
absolutely prohibiting slavery in Missouri, but it was voted
down. Then Mr. Thomas, a Senator from Illinois, on January 18,
1820, proposed that no restriction as to slavery be imposed
upon Missouri in framing a state constitution, but that in all
the rest of the country ceded by France to the United States
north of 30° 30', this being the southern boundary line of
Missouri, there should be neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude. This was the essence of the famous Missouri
Compromise, and, after long and acrimonious debates and
several more votes in the House for restriction and in the
Senate against it, this compromise was adopted. By it the
slave power obtained the present tangible object it contended
for; free labor won a contingent advantage in the future. …
Clay has been widely credited with being the 'father' of the
Missouri Compromise. As to the main features of the measure
this credit he did not deserve. So far he had taken a
prominent but not an originating part in the transaction."
But, at the next session of Congress, when the Missouri
question was unexpectedly reopened, and as threateningly as
ever, Clay assumed a more important part in connection with
the final settlement of it. "The bill passed at the last
session had authorized the people of Missouri to make a state
constitution without any restriction as to slavery. The formal
admission of the state was now to follow. But the Constitution
with which Missouri presented herself to Congress not only
recognized slavery as existing there; it provided also that it
should be the duty of the legislature to pass such laws as
would be necessary to prevent free negroes or mulattoes from
coming into or settling in the state." This provoked a new
revolt on the part of the Northern opponents of slavery, and
it was only through Clay's exertions as a pacificator that
Missouri was conditionally admitted to the Union at length
[March 3, 1820], the condition being that "the said state
shall never pass any law preventing any description of persons
from coming to or settling in the said state who now are, or
hereafter may become, citizens of any of the states of this
Union." The legislature of Missouri gave its assent, as
required, to this "fundamental condition," and the
"compromise" became complete. "The public mind turned at once
to things of more hopeful interest, and the Union seemed safer
than ever. The American people have since become painfully
aware that this was a delusion."
C. Schurz,
Life of Henry Clay,
chapter 8 (volume 1).
"The immediate contest was not over the question of the
prohibition of slavery in the Territories. The great struggle
lasted for nearly three years, but the final proposition which
closed the controversy and which prohibited slavery in almost
all the then Federal territory was probably not debated more
than three hours. It was accepted without discussion by the
great bulk of the advocates of Missouri's free admission. Very
few slavery extensionists questioned the right and power of
Congress to prevent the spread of slavery to the Territories.
{3362}
That question, in the minds of those who opposed restriction
in Missouri, was incidental to the question of the right of
Congress to impose conditions upon a State. Incidentally the
question of slavery in the Territories came up in the case of
Arkansas, a country south of Missouri, in which slavery was
already a fact. The restrictionists themselves recognized the
fact that the plain, simple issue 'of limiting the area of
human slavery would be strengthened by bringing it before the
country unincumbered with the question of imposing conditions
on a State, though most of them never wavered in their belief
that conditions might be imposed. On the one hand it was only
Southern zealots who denied to Congress the power to prohibit
slavery in the Territories; on the other hand many in the
North who opposed slavery believed that Congress might not
impose conditions upon a State. In the cabinet of Monroe, in
which sat Wirt, Crawford, and Calhoun, it was unanimously
agreed that Congress had power to prohibit slavery in the
Territories. But John Quincy Adams, also a member of that
cabinet, who hated slavery with all the strength of his soul,
thought it was unconstitutional to bind a State by conditions.
… The struggle indicated a notable change in the southern mind
on the slavery question, and that a slave power was forming
which would attempt to control all legislation of the federal
Union affecting slavery. … The struggle and the compromise
afford the first clear demarcation between the sections. From
this time the equilibrium of political power was a matter of
first concern to a section of States and to a powerful
political interest. Mason and Dixon's line is extended toward
the west, and now marks a political division. The slave States
were now, and for the first time, clearly separated from the
free. A geographical line dividing the sections was
established."
J. A. Woodburn,
Historical Significance of the Missouri Compromise
(Report of American Historical Association, 1893),
pages 289-294.
ALSO IN:
H. von Holst,
Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
volume 2, chapter 9.
J. Quincy,
Life of John Quincy Adams,
chapter 5.
H. Greeley,
The American Conflict,
volume 1, chapter 7.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1819.
Admission of Alabama into the Union.
See ALABAMA: A. D. 1817-1819.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1819-1821.
Acquisition of Florida from Spain.
Definition of the boundary of the Louisiana Purchase.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1819-1821.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1820.
Admission of Maine into the Union as a State.
See MAINE: A. D. 1820;
also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1820.
Ninth Presidential Election.
"Monroe like Washington was re-chosen President by a vote
practically unanimous. One, however, of the 232 electoral
votes cast was wanting to consummate this exceptional honor;
for a New Hampshire elector, with a boldness of discretion
which, in our days and especially upon a close canvass, would
have condemned him to infamy, threw away upon John Quincy
Adams the vote which belonged like those of his colleagues to
Monroe, determined, so it is said, that no later mortal should
stand in Washington's shoes. Of America's Presidents elected
by virtual acclamation history furnishes but these two
examples; and as between the men honored by so unapproachable
a tribute of confidence, Monroe entered upon his second term
of office with less of real political opposition than
Washington."
J. Schouler,
History of the United States,
chapter 10, section. 2 (volume 3).
Daniel D. Tompkins was re-elected Vice President.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1820.
The Fourth Census.
Total population, 9,638,191 (an increase exceeding 33 per
cent. over the enumeration of 1810), classed and distributed
as follows:
North.
White. Free black. Slave.
Connecticut. 267,161 7,844 97
Illinois. 53,788 457 917
Indiana. 145,758 1,230 190
Maine. 297,340 929 0
Massachusetts. 516,419 6,740 0
Michigan. 8,591 174 0
New Hampshire. 243,236 786 0
New Jersey. 257,409 12,460 7,557
New York. 1,332,744 29,279 10,088
Ohio. 576,572 4,723 0
Pennsylvania. 1,017,094 30,202 211
Rhode Island. 79,413 3,554 48
Vermont. 234,846 903 0
--- --- ---
Total 5,030,371 99,281 19,108
South.
White. Free black. Slave.
Alabama. 85,451 571 41,879
Arkansas 12,579 59 1,617
Delaware. 55,282 12,958 4,509
District of
Columbia. 22,614 4,048 6,377
Georgia. 189,566 1,763 149,654
Kentucky. 434,644 2,759 126,732
Louisiana. 73,383 10,476 69,064
Maryland. 260,223 39,730 107,397
Mississippi. 42,176 458 32,814
Missouri. 55,988 347 10,222
North Carolina. 419,200 14,612 205,017
South Carolina. 237,440 6,826 258,475
Tennessee. 339,927 2,727 80,107
Virginia. 603,087 36,889 425,153
--- --- ---
Total 2,831,560 134,223 1,519,017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1821.
Beginning of emigration to Texas.
See TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1824.
The Era of Good Feeling.
With the closing of the war of 1812-14, and the disappearance
of the party of the Federalists, there came a period of
remarkable quietude in the political world. "Then followed the
second administration of Monroe, to which was given, perhaps
by the President himself, a name which has secured for the
whole period a kind of peaceful eminence. It was probably
fixed and made permanent by two lines in Halleck's once famous
poem of 'Alnwick Castle,' evidently written during the poet's
residence in England in 1822-23. Speaking of the change from
the feudal to the commercial spirit, he says: "'Tis what our
President Monroe, Has called "the era of good feeling."' … It
would seem from this verse that Monroe himself was credited
with the authorship of the phrase; but I have been unable to
find it in his published speeches or messages, and it is
possible that it may be of newspaper origin, and that Halleck,
writing in England, may have fathered it on the President
himself."
T. W. Higginson,
Larger History of the United States,
page 394.
{3363}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1823.
The enunciation of the Monroe Doctrine.
One lasting mark of distinction was given to the
administration of President Monroe by the importance which
came to be attached to his enunciation of the principle of
policy since known as the "Monroe Doctrine." This was simply a
formal and official statement of the national demand that
foreign nations shall not interfere with the affairs of the
two American continents. "There has been a good deal of
dispute as to the real authorship of this announcement,
Charles Francis Adams claiming it for his father, and Charles
Sumner for the English statesman Canning. Mr. Gilman, however,
in his late memoir of President Monroe, has shown with
exhaustive research that this doctrine had grown up gradually
into a national tradition before Monroe's time, and that he
merely formulated it, and made it a matter of distinct record.
The whole statement is contained in a few detached passages of
his message of December 2, 1823. In this he announces that
'the American continents, by the free and independent
condition which they have assumed and maintain, are not to be
considered as subjects for colonization by European powers.'
Further on he points out that the people of the United States
have kept aloof from European dissensions, and ask only in
return that North and South America should be equally let
alone. 'We should consider any attempt on their part to extend
their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to
our peace and safety;' and while no objection is made to any
existing colony or dependency of theirs, yet any further
intrusion or interference would be regarded as 'the
manifestation of an unfriendly spirit towards the United
States.' This in brief, is the 'Monroe doctrine' as originally
stated; and it will always remain a singular fact that this
President—the least original or commanding of those who early
held that office—should yet be the only one whose name is
identified with what amounts to a wholly new axiom of
international law."
T. W. Higginson,
Larger History of the United States,
chapter 16.
"At a cabinet meeting May 13, 1818, President Monroe
propounded several questions on the subject of foreign
affairs, of which the fifth, as recorded by J. Q. Adams, was
this: 'Whether the ministers of the United States in Europe
shall be instructed that the United States will not join in
any project of interposition between Spain and the South
Americans, which should not be to promote the complete
independence of those provinces; and whether measures shall be
taken to ascertain if this be the policy of the British
government, and if so to establish a concert with them for the
support of this policy.' He adds that all these points were
discussed, without much difference of opinion. On July 31,
1818, Rush had an important interview with Castelreagh in
respect to a proposed mediation of Great Britain between Spain
and her colonies. The coöperation of the United States was
desired. Mr. Rush informed the British minister that 'the
United States would decline taking part, if they took part at
all, in any plan of pacification, except on the basis of the
independence of the colonies.' 'This,' he added, 'was the
determination to which his government had come on much
deliberation.' … Gallatin writes to J. Q. Adams, June 24,
1823, that before leaving Paris he had said to M.
Chateaubriand on May 13, 'The United States would undoubtedly
preserve their neutrality provided it were respected, and
avoid every interference with the politics of Europe. … On the
other hand, they would not suffer others to interfere against
the emancipation of America.' … After Canning had proposed to
Rush (September 19, 1823) that the United States should
coöperate with England in preventing European interference
with the Spanish-American colonies, Monroe consulted Jefferson
as well as the cabinet, on the course which it was advisable
to take, and with their approbation prepared his message. …
Enough has been quoted to show that Mr. Sumner is not
justified in saying that the 'Monroe doctrine proceeded from
Canning,' and that he was 'its inventor, promoter, and
champion, at least so far as it bears against European
intervention in American affairs.' Nevertheless, Canning is
entitled to high praise for the part which he took in the
recognition of the Spanish republics, a part which almost
justified his proud utterance, 'I called the New World into
existence to redress the balance of the Old.'"
D. C. Gilman,
James Monroe,
chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
C. Sumner,
Prophetic Voices concerning America,
page 157.
G. F. Tucker,
The Monroe Doctrine.
F. Wharton,
Digest of the International Law of the United States,
section 57 (volume 1).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824.
The Protective Tariff.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824.
Tenth Presidential Election.
No choice by the People.
Election of John Quincy Adams by the House of Representatives.
"In 1823, as the Presidential election approached, the
influences to control and secure the interests predominating
in the different sections of the country became more active.
Crawford of Georgia, Calhoun of South Carolina, Adams of
Massachusetts, and Clay of Kentucky, were the most prominent
candidates. In December, Barbour of Virginia was superseded,
as Speaker of the House of Representatives, by Clay of
Kentucky; an event ominous to the hopes of Crawford, and to
that resistance to the tariff and to internal improvements
which was regarded as dependent on his success. The question
whether a Congressional caucus, by the instrumentality of
which Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe had obtained the
Presidency, should be again held to nominate a candidate for
that office, was the next cause of political excitement. The
Southern party, whose hopes rested on the success of Crawford,
were clamorous for a caucus. The friends of the other
candidates were either lukewarm or hostile to that expedient.
Pennsylvania, whose general policy favored a protective tariff
and public improvements, hesitated. … But the Democracy of
that state … held meetings at Philadelphia, and elsewhere,
recommending a Congressional caucus. This motion would have
been probably adopted, had not the Legislature of Alabama,
about this time, nominated Andrew Jackson for the Presidency,
and accompanied their resolutions in his favor with a
recommendation to their representatives to use their best
exertions to prevent a Congressional nomination of a
President. The popularity of Jackson, and the obvious
importance to his success of the policy recommended by
Alabama, fixed the wavering counsels of Pennsylvania, so that
only three representatives from that state attended the
Congressional caucus, which was soon after called, and which
consisted of only 60 members, out of 261, the whole number of
the House of Representatives; of which Virginia and New York,
under the lead of Mr. Van Buren, constituted nearly one half.
{3364}
Notwithstanding this meagre assemblage, Mr. Crawford was
nominated for the Presidency. … But the days of Congressional
caucuses were now numbered. The people took the nomination of
President into their own hands [and John Quincy Adams and
Henry Clay were brought into the field]. … The result of this
electioneering conflict was that, by the returns of the
electoral colleges of the several states, it appeared that
none of the candidates had the requisite constitutional
majority; the whole number of votes being 261—of which Andrew
Jackson had 99, John Quincy Adams 84, William H. Crawford 41,
and Henry Clay 37. [The popular vote cast as nearly as can be
determined, was: Jackson, 153,544; Adams, 108,740; Crawford,
46,618; Clay, 47,136.] For the office of Vice-President, John
C. Calhoun had 180 votes, and was elected. … Of the 84 votes
cast for Mr. Adams, not one was given by either of the three
great Southern slaveholding states. Seventy-seven were given
to him by New England and New York. The other seven were cast
by the Middle or recently admitted states. The selection of
President from the candidates now devolved on the House of
Representatives, under the provisions of the constitution.
But, again, Mr. Adams had the support of none of those
slaveholding states, with the exception of Kentucky, and her
delegates were equally divided between him and General
Jackson. The decisive vote was, in effect, in the hands of Mr.
Clay, then Speaker of the House, who cast it for Mr. Adams; a
responsibility he did not hesitate to assume, notwithstanding
the equal division of the Kentucky delegation, and in defiance
of a resolution passed by the Legislature of that state,
declaring their preference for General Jackson. On the final
vote Andrew Jackson had 7 votes, William H. Crawford 4, and
John Quincy Adams 13; who was, therefore, forthwith declared
President of the United States for four years ensuing the 4th
of March, 1825. … Immediately after his inauguration, Mr.
Adams appointed Henry Clay, of Kentucky, Secretary of State. …
General Jackson was deeply mortified and irritated by Mr.
Clay's preference of Mr. Adams. … He immediately put into
circulation among his friends and partisans an unqualified
statement to the effect that Mr. Adams had obtained the
Presidency by means of a corrupt bargain with Henry Clay, on
the condition that he should be elevated to the office of
Secretary of State. To this calumny Jackson gave his name and
authority, asserting that he possessed evidence of its truth;
and, although Mr. Clay and his friends publicly denied the
charge, and challenged proof of it, two years elapsed before
they could compel him to produce his evidence. This, when
adduced, proved utterly groundless, and the charge false; the
whole being but the creation of an irritated and disappointed
mind. Though detected and exposed, the calumny had the effect
for which it was calculated. Jackson's numerous partisans and
friends made it the source of an uninterrupted stream of abuse
upon Mr. Adams, through his whole administration."
J. Quincy,
Memoir of the Life of John Quincy Adams,
chapters 6-7.
The new administration "stood upon the same political basis as
that of Mr. Monroe. It was but a continuance of the same party
ascendency. It looked to no change of measures, and to no
other change of men than became inevitably necessary to supply
the vacancies which the accidents of political life had
created. Mr. Clay was called to the State Department [and was
maliciously accused of having bargained for it when he threw
his influence at last in Mr. Adams' favor]. … The country …
indulged the hope of a prosperous career in the track which
had been opened by Mr. Madison, and so successfully pursued by
Mr. Monroe. Less confidently, however, it indulged the hope of
a continuance of that immunity from party contention and
exasperation which had characterized the last eight years. The
rising of an opposition was seen, at the very commencement of
this administration, like a dark cloud upon the horizon, which
gradually spread towards the zenith, not without much rumbling
of distant thunder and angry flashes of fire. It was quite
obvious to shrewd observers that the late election had
disappointed many eager spirits, whose discontent was likely
to make head against the predominant party, and, by uniting
the scattered fragments of an opposition which had heretofore
only slept, whilst the country had supposed it extinct, would
present a very formidable antagonist to the new
administration. The extraordinary popularity of General
Jackson, the defeat of his friends by the vote of the House of
Representatives, the neutrality of his political position, his
avowed toleration towards political opponents, and what was
thought to be his liberal views in regard to prominent
political measures—for as yet nothing was developed in his
opinions to set him in direct opposition to the policy or
principles which governed the administration either of Madison
or Monroe—all these considerations gave great strength to the
position which he now occupied, and, in the same degree,
emboldened the hopes of those who looked to him as the proper
person to dispute the next election against the present
incumbent. Many of those who had hoped to see the reign of
good feeling and of abstinence from party strife prolonged,
will remember with what surprise they saw this gathering of
hostile elements, and heard it proclaimed by an authoritative
political leader [Colonel Richard M. Johnson], in the first
days of the new administration, that it should be and ought to
be opposed, 'even if it were as pure as the angels at the
right hand of the throne of God.' Such a declaration was not
less ominous of what was to come than it was startling for its
boldness and its novelty in the history of the government. …
The opposition … took an organized form—became compact,
eager, intolerant and even vindictive."
J. P. Kennedy,
Memoirs of the Life of William Wirt,
volume 2, chapter 10.
"Monroe was the last President of the Virginian line, John
Quincy Adams the last from New England. The centre of power
was passing from the east to the west. Adams was a genuine New
Englander of the Puritan stock, austerely moral, from his
boyhood laboriously self-trained, not only staid but solemn in
his teens, intensely self-conscious, ever engaged in
self-examination, the punctual keeper of a voluminous diary,
an invariably early riser, a daily reader of the Bible even in
the White House, scrupulously methodical and strictly upright
in all his ways; but testy, unconciliatory, unsympathetic,
absolutely destitute of all the arts by which popularity is
won.
{3365}
His election does the highest credit to the respect of the
electors for public virtue unadorned. The peculiar features of
his father's character were so intensified in him that he may
be deemed the typical figure rather than his father. In
opinions he was a Federalist who having broken with his party
on the question of foreign relations and the embargo had been
put out of its pale but had retained its general mould. As he
was about the last President chosen for merit not for
availability, so he was about the last whose only rule was not
party but the public service. So strictly did he observe the
principle of permanency and purity in the Civil Service, that
he refused to dismiss from office a Postmaster-General whom he
knew to be intriguing against him. The demagogic era had come
but he would not recognize its coming. He absolutely refused
to go on the stump, to conciliate the press, to do anything
for the purpose of courting popularity and making himself a
party. His obstinacy was fatal to his ambition but is not
dishonourable to his memory."
Goldwin Smith,
The United States,
chapter 4.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824-1825.
The visit of Lafayette.
One of the most deeply interesting events of the year 1824 was
the arrival in the country of the honored Lafayette, companion
of Washington and friend of the American Republic in its
struggle for independence. He came on the invitation of the
national Government and was entertained as its guest. "He
arrived at Staten Island on Sunday, 15th of August, 1824,
accompanied by his son, George Washington Lafayette, and his
son-in-]aw, M. Le Vasseur. Here he remained until Monday, and
was then met and welcomed by a distinguished committee from
New York, who escorted him to that city. … The arrival of
Lafayette was an event which stirred the whole country;
everybody was anxious to see him, and every State and city in
the Union extended an invitation to him to visit such State or
city; and he did so, being everywhere received with the most
enthusiastic manifestations of love and respect. … He spent a
little over a year in the United States, traveling most of the
time. … Having visited every portion of the United States and
received the affectionate homage of the people, General
Lafayette returned to Washington, where he became in fact 'the
Nation's Guest' at the Presidential mansion. Soon after the
meeting of Congress, in December, 1824, a bill was reported by
a joint committee of the two Houses granting to him a township
of land and the sum of $200,000, which became a law."
N. Sargent,
Public Men and Events, 1817-1853,
volume 1, page 89-91.
ALSO IN:
A. Levasseur,
Lafayette in America, in 1824-1825.
B. Tuckerman,
Life of General Lafayette,
volume 2, chapter 7.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824-1836.
Schemes of the Slave Power for acquiring Texas.
See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1825-1828.
Opposition to the Administration.
The question of Internal Improvements.
Reconstruction of Parties.
Democrats and National Republicans.
The inaugural address of President Adams "furnished a topic"
against him, and "went to the reconstruction of parties on the
old line of strict, or latitudinous, construction of the
constitution. It was the topic of internal national
improvement by the federal government. The address extolled
the value of such works, considered the constitutional
objections as yielding to the force of argument, expressed the
hope that every speculative (constitutional) scruple would be
solved in a practical blessing; and declared the belief that,
in the execution of such works, posterity would derive a
fervent gratitude to the founders of our Union and most deeply
feel and acknowledge the beneficent action of our government.
The declaration of principles which would give so much power
to the government … alarmed the old republicans, and gave a
new ground of opposition to Mr. Adams's administration, in
addition to the strong one growing out of the election in the
House of Representatives. … This new ground of opposition was
greatly strengthened at the delivery of the first annual
message, in which the topic of internal improvement was again
largely enforced, other subjects recommended which would
require a liberal use of constructive powers, and Congress
informed that the President had accepted an invitation from
the American States of Spanish origin, to send ministers to
their proposed Congress on the Isthmus of Panama.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.
It was, therefore, clear from the beginning that the new
administration was to have a settled and strong opposition. …
There was opposition in the Senate to the confirmation of Mr.
Clay's nomination to the State department, growing out of his
support of Mr. Adams in the election of the House of
Representatives, and acceptance of office from him; but
overruled by a majority of two to one."
T. H. Benton,
Thirty Years' View,
volume 1, chapter 21.
"From the very beginning of this Administration both factions
of the Strict Constructionists united in an opposition to the
President which became stronger through his whole term of
office, until it overcame him. His ill-advised nomination of
Clay to a post in his Cabinet gave color to the charge of a
corrupt bargain between him and Clay, by which Adams was to
receive the Clay vote in the House, and Clay was to be
rewarded by the position of Secretary of State, which was then
usually considered a stepping stone to the Presidency. Clay
angrily denied any such bargain, and the renewal of charges
and denials, each with its appropriate arguments, gave
abundant material for debate. The Clay and Adams factions soon
united and took the distinctive party name of National
Republicans. Some years afterward this name was changed to
that of Whigs. They maintained the loose constructionist
principles of the Federalists, and, in addition, desired a
Protective Tariff and a system of public improvements at
national expense. … In October, 1825, the Tennessee
Legislature nominated Jackson for the Presidency in 1828, and
Jackson accepted the nomination. Crawford's continued
ill-health compelled his adherents to look elsewhere for a
candidate, and they gradually united upon Jackson. At first
the resulting coalition was known as 'Jackson Men,' but, as
they began to take the character of a national party, they
assumed the name of Democrats, by which they have since been
known. They maintained the strict constructionist principles
of the Republican party, though the Crawford faction in the
South went further, and held the extreme ground of the
Kentucky Resolutions of 1799."
A. Johnston,
History of American Politics, 2d edition,
chapter 11.
ALSO IN:
C. Schurz,
Life of Henry Clay,
volume 1, chapters 10-12.
{3366}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828.
The Tariff "Bill of Abominations."
Change of front in New England.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES: A. D. 1828).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828.
Eleventh Presidential Election.
Triumph of Jackson and the new Democracy.
Andrew Jackson was again put in nomination for the Presidency,
while President Adams was supported for re-election by the
National Republicans. "The campaign was conducted, on both
sides, on very ruthless methods. Niles said it was worse than
the campaign of 1798. Campaign extras of the 'Telegraph' were
issued weekly, containing partisan material, refutations of
charges against Jackson, and slanders on Adams and Clay. The
Adams party also published a monthly of a similar character.
The country was deluged with pamphlets on both sides. These
pamphlets were very poor stuff, and contain nothing important
on any of the issues. They all appeal to low tastes and
motives, prejudices and jealousies. … In September, 1827, the
Tammany General Committee and the Albany 'Argus' came out for
Jackson, as it had been determined, in the programme, that
they should do. A law was passed for casting the vote of New
York in 1828 by districts. The days of voting throughout the
country ranged from October 31st to November 19th. The votes
were cast by the Legislature in Delaware and South Carolina;
by districts in Maine, New York, Maryland, Tennessee;
elsewhere, by general ticket. Jackson got 178 votes to 83 for
Adams. The popular vote was 648,273 for Jackson; 508,064 for
Adams. Jackson got only one vote in New England. … For
Vice-President, Richard Rush got all the Adams votes; Calhoun
[who was elected] got all the Jackson votes except 7 of
Georgia, which were given to William Smith, of South Carolina.
General Jackson was therefore triumphantly elected President
of the United States, in the name of reform, and as the
standard-bearer of the people, rising in their might to
overthrow an extravagant, corrupt, aristocratic, federalist
administration, which had encroached on the liberties of the
people, and had aimed to corrupt elections by an abuse of
federal patronage. Many people believed this picture of
Adams's administration to be true. Andrew Jackson no doubt
believed it. Many people believe it yet. Perhaps no
administration, except that of the elder Adams, is under such
odium. There is not, however, in our history any
administration which, upon a severe and impartial scrutiny,
appears more worthy of respectful and honorable memory. Its
chief fault was that it was too good for the wicked world in
which it found itself. In 1836 Adams said, in the House, that
he had never removed one person from office for political
causes, and that he thought that was one of the principal
reasons why he was not reëlected."
W. G. Sumner,
Andrew Jackson as a Public Man,
chapter 5.
"In this election there was a circumstance to be known and
remembered. Mr. Adams and Mr. Rush were both from the
non-slaveholding, General Jackson and Mr. Calhoun from the
slaveholding States, and both large slave owners themselves,
and both received a large vote (73 each) in the free
States—and of which at least 40 were indispensable to their
election. There was no jealousy, or hostile or aggressive
spirit in the North at that time against the South!"
T. H. Benton,
Thirty Years' View,
volume 1, chapter 38.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.
The Nullification doctrine and ordinance of South Carolina.
The Hayne and Webster debate.
President Jackson's proclamation.
The Compromise Tariff.
"In May, 1828, a meeting of the South Carolina delegation in
Congress was held in Washington, at the rooms of General
Hayne, one of the Senators of that State, to concert measures
against the tariff and the protective policy which it
embodied. From the history of the times, and the disclosures
subsequently made, it is apparent that some violent things
were said at this meeting, but it broke up without any
definite plan. In the course of the following summer, there
were many popular meetings in South Carolina, largely
attended, at which the tariff of 1824 was treated as an act of
despotism and usurpation, which ought to be openly resisted. …
They occasioned anxiety and regret among the friends of the
Union throughout the country, though nothing more. But, in the
autumn, the Legislature of South Carolina adopted an
'Exposition and Protest,' which gave form and substance to the
doctrines which thenceforward became known as 'Nullification.'
In order to understand them, however, as a theory of the
Federal Constitution, it is necessary to state the theory to
which they are opposed, and to overthrow which they were
brought forward. The Government of the United States, under
the Constitution, had hitherto been administered upon the
principle that the extent of its powers is to be finally
determined by its supreme judicial tribunal, not only when
there is any conflict of authority between its several
departments, but also when the authority of the whole
Government is denied by one or more of the States. … Aside
from the authority of [the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions
of 1798]—an authority that was doubtful, because their
interpretation was not clear—there had been no important
assertion of the principle that a State can determine for its
citizens whether they are to obey an act of Congress, by
asserting its unconstitutional character, and that the right
to do this is implied as a right inherent in a State, under
the Constitution, and results from the nature of the
Government. This, however, was what the advocates of
nullification now undertook to establish. The remedy which
they sought, against acts which they regarded as usurpations,
was not revolution, and not the breaking up the Union, as they
claimed; but it was a remedy which they held to exist within
the Union, and to have been contemplated by the people of the
States when they established the Constitution. How far they
considered such a theory compatible with the continued
existence of the Union, I am not aware that they undertook to
explain. … Although the Legislature of South Carolina had thus
propounded a theory of resistance, and held that there was
then a case in the tariff which would justify a resort to it,
no steps were yet taken toward the immediate exercise of the
asserted power." In the great debate between General Hayne of
South Carolina and Daniel Webster, which occurred in the
Senate, in January, 1830, the doctrine of nullification
received for the first time a discussion which sank deep into
the mind of the nation.
{3367}
The original subject-matter of the debate was a resolution
relating to Western land sales; but Hayne in his first speech
made an attack on New England which drew out Webster in
vindication, and then, when the South Carolinian replied, he
boldly and broadly set forth the nullifying theory which his
State had accepted from the sophistical brain of John C.
Calhoun. It received its refutation then and there, in
Webster's final speech. "The effect of this speech upon the
country, that immediately followed its delivery, it is not
easy for us at the present day to measure. … Vast numbers of
Mr. Webster's speech were … published and circulated in
pamphlet editions, after all the principal newspapers of the
country had given it entire to their readers. The popular
verdict, throughout the Northern and Western and many of the
Southern States was decisive. A great majority of the people
of the United States, of all parties, understood, appreciated,
and accepted the view maintained by Mr. Webster of the nature
of the Constitution, and the character of the government which
it establishes."
G. T. Curtis,
Life of Daniel Webster,
chapter 16 (volume 1).

If Webster's speech had solidified the majority opinion of the
country in resistance to nullification, it had not paralyzed
the nullifying movement. In the summer of 1831, and again in
August, 1832, Calhoun published addresses to the people of
South Carolina, elaborating his doctrine, and "urging an
immediate issue on account of the oppressive tariff
legislation under which the South was then suffering. The
Legislature of South Carolina was convened by the governor to
meet on October 22, for the purpose of calling a convention
'to consider the character and extent of the usurpations of
the general government.' The convention met on November 19,
and adopted without delay an 'ordinance' declaring that the
tariff act of 1828, and the amendments thereto passed in 1832,
were null and void; that it should be held unlawful to enforce
the payment of duties thereunder within the State of South
Carolina; that it should be the duty of the legislature to
make laws giving effect to the ordinance; … and that, if the
general government should attempt to use force to maintain the
authority of the federal law, the State of South Carolina
would secede from the Union,—the ordinance to go into full
effect on February 1, 1833. The legislature, which met again
on November 19, passed the 'appropriate' laws. But these
enactments were not very fierce; as Webster said, they 'limped
far behind the ordinance.' Some preparation, although little,
was made for a conflict of arms;" nor was there any certain
show of readiness in other Southern States to stand by South
Carolina in the position she had taken. "President Jackson's
annual message, which went to Congress on December 4, 1832,
was remarkably quiet in tone," and neither alarmed the
nullifiers nor gave confidence to the friends of the Union;
but "six days later, on December 10, came out Jackson's famous
proclamation against the nullifiers, which spoke thus: 'The
Constitution of the United States forms a government, not a
league. … Our Constitution does not contain the absurdity of
giving power to make laws, and another power to resist them.
To say that any state may at pleasure secede from the Union is
to say that the United States are not a nation.' He appealed
to the people of South Carolina, in the tone of a father, to
desist from their ruinous enterprise; but he gave them also
clearly to understand that, if they resisted by force, the
whole power of the Union would be exerted to maintain its
authority. All over the North, even where Jackson had been
least popular, the proclamation was hailed with unbounded
enthusiasm. … The nullifiers in South Carolina received the
presidential manifesto apparently with defiance. The governor
of the state issued a counter-proclamation. Calhoun resigned
the vice-presidency, and was immediately sent to the Senate to
fight the battle for nullification there." The president, now
thoroughly roused, called on Congress for extraordinary powers
to meet the emergency, and a bill embodying his wishes—called
the "Force Bill"—was introduced. But, at the same time, while
they showed this bold front to the nullifiers, Congress and
the executive began to prepare a retreat from the ground they
had held on the tariff. Henry Clay took the field again, in
the exercise of his peculiar talents for compromise, and the
result was the nearly simultaneous passage (February 26 and
27, 1833) through Congress of the "Force bill" and of a
compromise tariff bill, which latter provided for a graduated
reduction of the duties year by year, until 1842, when they
should stand at 20 per cent., as a horizontal rate, with a
large free-list. "The first object of the measure was
attained: South Carolina repealed her nullification ordinance.
… But before long it became clear that beyond the repeal of
the nullification ordinance, the compromise had settled
nothing. The nullifiers strenuously denied that they had in
any sense given up their peculiar doctrine."
C. Schurz,
Life of Henry Clay,
chapter 14 (volume 2).
"The theory of nullification, as set forth by Calhoun, even
now, after it has received the benefit of careful study and
able expounding by historians, is not clear. He always avowed
a loyalty to the Union, but the arguments by which he sought
to demonstrate that nullification was compatible with the
existence of the Union, and indeed a guarantee of its
perpetuity, did not occasion much solicitude to the majority
of his party. But no one at the North understood the fallacy
of his reasoning or the real end and aim of his party more
clearly than did the Union men of his state. They reasoned
simply. Said the Camden, S. C. 'Gazette': 'We know of only two
ways, under our government, to get rid of obnoxious
legislation. We must convince a majority of the nation that a
given enactment is wrong and have it repealed in the form
prescribed by the constitution, or resist it
extra-constitutionally by the sword. … But this everlasting
cant of devotion to the Union, accompanied by a recommendation
to do those acts that must necessarily destroy it, is beyond
patient endurance from a people not absolutely confined in
their own mad-houses.' … A fact … that historians have failed
to lay any stress upon, and that nevertheless deserves some
notice, is the holding of a state convention of the Union
party of South Carolina immediately after the nullification
convention had completed its work. It was the last important
action of that party in the state.
{3368}
Randell Hunt, who presented the first resolutions, epitomized
the views of the convention and the question it should
consider in three sentences: 'That the Union party
acknowledges no allegiance to any government except that of
the United States. That in referring this resolution to the
general committee they be instructed to inquire whether it is
not expedient to give a military organization to the Union
party throughout the state. Whether it will not be necessary
to call in the assistance of the general government for
maintaining the laws of the United States against the
arbitrary violence which is threatened by the late
convention.' The resolutions which were adopted declared that
the ordinance of nullification violated the constitution of
the United States and had virtually destroyed the Union, since
by preventing the general government from enforcing its laws
within the boundaries of the state, it made the state a
sovereignty paramount to the United States. They denounced the
provisions of the ordinance as tyrannical and oppressive, and
the test oath as especially incompatible with civil liberty,
in that it disfranchised nearly half the citizens of the
state. They pointed scornfully to the project of a standing
army in the state. … They concluded by declaring the continued
opposition of the signers to the tariff, and their
determination to protect themselves against intolerable
oppression. The resolutions were signed by all the members of
the convention, about 180 in number. In point of fact, the
Unionists were not disposed to favor any compromise measures,
and looked rather with disfavor upon Mr. Clay's bill, as a
measure which was being forced upon the country. Congress,
they thought, ought not to modify the tariff until the
nullification ordinance had been repealed. But the greater
force was with the nullifiers, and the number of their
opponents was dwindling. Caught by the enthusiasm and fighting
spirit of their neighbors, some of the Unionists joined the
nullification military companies that were being organized,
and others, seeing the hopelessness of the struggle against a
superior force, in sorrow and disgust shook the dust of South
Carolina from their feet, preferring to begin life over again
in other parts of the South, less charged with sentiments that
they believed to be treasonable. … The Unionist party, crushed
and helpless, was only too anxious to bury all feuds. It never
was an active force in the state again, but the bold spirit
which had actuated its members was manifested later, when the
struggle for state sovereignty was more widespread; and some
of the most intrepid Union men of the South in the civil war
were those who had fled from South Carolina years before, when
the nullification party had triumphed."
G. Hunt,
South Carolina during the Nullification Struggle
(Political Science Quarterly, June, 1891).
ALSO IN:
W. G. Sumner,
Andrew Jackson as a Public Man,
chapters 10 and 13.
H. von Holst,
Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
volume 1, chapter 12.
J. Parton,
Life of Andrew Jackson,
volume 3, chapters 32-34.
T. H. Benton,
Thirty Years' View,
volume 1, chapters 78-89.
J. C. Calhoun,
Works,
volume 6
(Reports and Public Letters).
O. L. Elliott,
The Tariff Controversy in the United States,
chapter 5.
The following is the text of the "Ordinance to nullify certain
acts of the Congress of the United States, purporting to be
laws laying duties and imposts on the importation of foreign
commodities," adopted by the State Convention of South
Carolina on the 24th of November, 1832:
"Whereas the Congress of the United States by various acts,
purporting to be acts laying duties and imposts on foreign
imports, but in reality intended for the protection of
domestic manufactures, and the giving of bounties to classes
and individuals engaged in particular employments, at the
expense and to the injury and oppression of other classes and
individuals, and by wholly exempting from taxation certain
foreign commodities, such as are not produced or manufactured
in the United States, to afford a pretext for imposing higher
and excessive duties on articles similar to those intended to
be protected, hath exceeded its just powers under the
constitution, which confers on it no authority to afford such
protection, and hath violated the true meaning and intent of
the constitution, which provides for equality in imposing the
burdens of taxation upon the several States and portions of
the confederacy: And whereas the said Congress, exceeding its
just power to impose taxes and collect revenue for the purpose
of effecting and accomplishing the specific objects and
purposes which the constitution of the United States
authorizes it to effect and accomplish, hath raised and
collected unnecessary revenue for objects unauthorized by the
constitution. We, therefore, the people of the State of South
Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and
it is hereby declared and ordained, that the several acts and
parts of acts of the Congress of the United States, purporting
to be laws for the imposing of duties and imposts on the
importation of foreign commodities, and now having actual
operation and effect within the United States, and, more
especially, an act entitled 'An act in alteration of the
several acts imposing duties on imports,' approved on the
nineteenth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and
twenty-eight, and also an act entitled 'An act to alter and
amend the several acts imposing duties on imports,' approved
on the fourteenth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and
thirty-two, are unauthorized by the constitution of the United
States, and violate the true meaning and intent thereof and
are null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State, its
officers or citizens; and all promises, contracts, and
obligations, made or entered into, or to be made or entered
into, with purpose to secure the duties imposed by said acts,
and all judicial proceedings which shall be hereafter had in
affirmance thereof, are and shall be held utterly null and
void. And it is further ordained, that it shall not be lawful
for any of the constituted authorities, whether of this State
or of the United States, to enforce the payment of duties
imposed by the said acts within the limits of this State; but
it shall be the duty of the legislature to adopt such measures
and pass such acts as may be necessary to give full effect to
this ordinance, and to prevent the enforcement and arrest the
operation of the said acts and parts of acts of the Congress
of the United States within the limits of this State, from and
after the 1st day of February next, and the duty of all other
constituted authorities, and of all persons residing or being
within the limits of this State, and they are hereby required
and enjoined to obey and give effect to this ordinance, and
such acts and measures of the legislature as may be passed or
adopted in obedience thereto.
{3369}
And it is further ordained, that in no case of law or equity,
decided in the courts of this State, wherein shall be drawn in
question the authority of this ordinance, or the validity of
such act or acts of the legislature as may be passed for the
purpose of giving effect thereto, or the validity of the
aforesaid acts of Congress, imposing duties, shall any appeal
be taken or allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States,
nor shall any copy of the record be permitted or allowed for
that purpose; and if any such appeal shall be attempted to be
taken, the courts of this State shall proceed to execute and
enforce their judgments according to the laws and usages of
the State, without reference to such attempted appeal, and the
person or persons attempting to take such appeal may be dealt
with as for a contempt of the court. And it is further
ordained, that all persons now holding any office of honor,
profit, or trust, civil or military, under this State (members
of the legislature excepted), shall, within such time, and in
such manner as the legislature shall prescribe, take an oath
well and truly to obey, execute, and enforce this ordinance,
and such act or acts of the legislature as may be passed in
pursuance thereof, according to the true intent and meaning of
the same; and on the neglect or omission of any such person or
persons so to do, his or their office or offices shall be
forthwith vacated, and shall be filled up as if such person or
persons were dead or had resigned; and no person hereafter
elected to any office of honor, profit, or trust, civil or
military (members of the legislature excepted), shall, until
the legislature shall otherwise provide and direct, enter on
the execution of his office, or be in any respect competent to
discharge the duties thereof until he shall, in like manner,
have taken a similar oath; and no juror shall be empanelled in
any of the courts of this State, in any cause in which shall
be in question this ordinance, or any act of the legislature
passed in pursuance thereof, unless he shall first, in
addition to the usual oath, have taken an oath that he will
well and truly obey, execute, and enforce this ordinance, and
such act or acts of the legislature as may be passed to carry
the same into operation and effect, according to the true
intent and meaning thereof. And we, the people of South
Carolina, to the end that it may be fully understood by the
government of the United States, and the people of the
co-States, that we are determined to maintain this our
ordinance and declaration, at every hazard, do further declare
that we will not submit to the application of force on the
part of the federal government, to reduce this State to
obedience; but that we will consider the passage, by Congress,
of any act authorizing the employment of a military or naval
force against the State of South Carolina, her constitutional
authorities or citizens; or any act abolishing or closing the
ports of this State, or any of them, or otherwise obstructing
the free ingress and egress of vessels to and from the said
ports, or any other act on the part of the federal government,
to coerce the State, shut up her ports, destroy or harass her
commerce, or to enforce the acts hereby declared to be null
and void, otherwise than through the civil tribunals of the
country, as inconsistent with the longer continuance of South
Carolina in the Union; and that the people of this State will
henceforth hold themselves absolved from all further
obligation to maintain or preserve their political connection
with the people of the other States; and will forthwith
proceed to organize a separate government, and do all other
acts and things which sovereign and independent States may of
right do. Done in convention at Columbia, the twenty-fourth
day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and thirty-two, and in the fifty-seventh year of the
declaration of the independence of the United States of
America."
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.
Introduction of the "Spoils System."
See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.
The Kitchen Cabinet of President Jackson.
Major Lewis, one of the Tennessee friends of General Jackson,
who accompanied him to Washington and was persuaded to remain,
with his residence at the White House; General Duff Green,
editor of the "United States Telegraph"; Isaac Hill, editor of
the "New Hampshire Patriot," and Amos Kendall, late the editor
of a Jackson paper in Kentucky, but a native of
Massachusetts:—"these were the gentlemen … who, at the
beginning of the new administration, were supposed to have
most of the President's ear and confidence, and were
stigmatized by the opposition as the Kitchen Cabinet."
J. Parton,
Life of Andrew Jackson,
volume 3, chapter 16.
After the breach between Jackson and Calhoun, Duff Green
adhered to the latter. The "Globe" newspaper was then founded,
to be the organ of the administration, and Francis P. Blair,
called from Kentucky to undertake the editorship, acquired at
the same time Duff Green's vacated seat in the Kitchen
Cabinet.
J. Schouler,
History of the United States,
volume 3, page 501.
"The establishment of the 'Globe,' the rupture with Calhoun,
and the breaking up of the first cabinet had inaugurated a
bitter war between the two rival papers, though really between
the President and Mr. Calhoun, in consequence of which there
were rich revelations made to the public."
N. Sargent,
Public Men and Events, 1817-1853,
volume 1, page 186.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829-1832.
Rise of the Abolitionists.
"Between the years 1829 and 1832 took place a remarkable
series of debates in Virginia on the subject of slavery,
brought about by dissatisfaction with the State constitution
and by the Nat Turner massacre, in which a number of slaves
had risen against their masters. In these debates the evils of
slavery were exposed as clearly as they were afterwards by the
Abolitionists, and with an outspoken freedom which, when
indulged in by Northern men, was soon to be denounced as
treasonable and incendiary. These Southern speakers were
silenced by the Slave Power. But there were men in the North
who thought the same and who would not be silenced. Chief
among these was William Lloyd Garrison. He had begun his
memorable career by circulating petitions in Vermont in 1828
in favor of emancipation in the District of Columbia. Having
joined Lundy in Baltimore in editing the 'Genius of Universal
Emancipation,' he had suffered ignominy in the cause, in a
Southern jail; drawing from persecution and hardship only new
inspiration, he began the publication of the 'Liberator', at
Boston in January, 1831.
{3370}
In the following year, under his leadership, was formed the
New England Anti-Slavery Society, which placed itself on the
new ground that immediate, unconditional emancipation, without
expatriation, was the right of every slave and could not be
withheld by his master an hour without sin. In March, 1833,
the 'Weekly Emancipator' was established in New York, with the
assistance of Arthur and Lewis Tappan, and under the
editorship of William Goodell. In the same year appeared at
Haverhill, Massachusetts, a vigorous pamphlet by John G.
Whittier, entitled 'Justice and Expediency, or Slavery
considered with a View to its Rightful and Effectual Remedy,
Abolition.' Nearly simultaneously were published Mrs. Lydia
Maria Child's 'Appeal in Behalf of that Class of Americans
called Africans,' and a pamphlet by Elizur Wright, Jr., a
professor in the Western Reserve College, on 'The Sin of
Slavery and its Remedy.' These publications and the doctrines
of the 'Liberator' produced great excitement throughout the
country."
B. Tuckerman,
William Jay and the Constitutional Movement for the
Abolition of Slavery,
chapter 3.
The "Liberator" "was a weekly journal, bearing the names of
William Lloyd Garrison and Isaac Knapp as publishers. Its
motto was, 'Our Country is the World, Our Countrymen are
Mankind,' a direct challenge to those whose motto was the
Jingo cry of those days, 'Our Country, right or wrong!' It was
a modest folio, with a page of four columns, measuring
fourteen inches by nine and a quarter. … The paper had not a
dollar of capital. It was printed at first with borrowed type.
Garrison and Knapp did all the work of every kind between
them, Garrison of course doing the editorials. That he wrote
them can hardly be said: his habit was often to set up without
manuscript. … The publishers announced in their first issue
their determination to go on as long as they had bread and
water to live on. In fact, they lived on bread and milk, with
a little fruit and a few cakes, which they bought in small
shops below. Garrison apologizes for the meagreness of the
editorials, which, he says, he has but six hours, and those at
midnight, to compose, all the rest of his time and the whole
of that of his companion being taken up by the mechanical
work. … It was against nothing less than the world, or at
least the world in which he lived, that this youth of
twenty-six, with his humble partner, took up arms. Slavery was
at the height of its power. … The salutatory of the
'Liberator' avowed that its editor meant to speak out without
restraint. 'I will be as harsh as truth and as uncompromising
as justice. On this subject I do not wish to think or speak or
write with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on
fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue
his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to
gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has
fallen—but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the
present. I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not
excuse—I will not retreat a single inch—and I will be heard.'
This promise was amply kept. … In private and in his family he
was all gentleness and affection. Let it be said, too, that he
set a noble example to controversial editors in his fair
treatment of his opponents. Not only did he always give
insertion to their replies, but he copied their criticisms
from other journals into his own. Fighting for freedom of
discussion, he was ever loyal to his own principle. What is
certain is that the 'Liberator,' in spite of the smallness of
its circulation, which was hardly enough to keep it alive,
soon told. The South was moved to its centre. The editorials
probably would not have caused much alarm, as the slaves could
not read. What was likely to cause more alarm was the
frontispiece, which spoke plainly enough to the slave's eye.
It represented an auction at which 'slaves, horses and other
cattle' were being offered for sale, and a whipping-post at
which a slave was being flogged. In the background was the
Capitol at Washington, with a flag inscribed 'Liberty'
floating over the dome. … On seeing the 'Liberator' the realm
of slavery bestirred itself. A Vigilance Association took the
matter in hand. First came fiery and bloodthirsty editorials;
then anonymous threats; then attempts by legal enactment to
prevent the circulation of the 'Liberator' at the South. The
Grand Jury of North Carolina found a true bill against
Garrison for the circulation of a paper of seditious tendency,
the penalty for which was whipping and imprisonment for the
first offence, and death without benefit of clergy for the
second. The General Assembly of Georgia offered a reward of
five thousand dollars to anyone who, under the laws of that
State, should arrest the editor of the 'Liberator', bring him
to trial, and prosecute him to conviction. The South
reproached Boston with allowing a battery to be planted on her
soil against the ramparts of Southern institutions. Boston
felt the reproach, and showed that she would gladly have
suppressed the incendiary print and perhaps have delivered up
its editor; but the law was against her, and the mass of the
people, though wavering in their allegiance to morality on the
question of slavery, were still loyal to freedom of opinion. …
It was just at this time that the South and its clientage at
the North were thrown into a paroxysm of excitement by the
Bloody Monday, as Nat Turner's rising at Southampton was
called. The rising was easily suppressed, and Virginia saw, as
Jamaica has since seen, how cruel is the panic of a dominant
race. Not the slightest connection of the outbreak with
Northern abolitionism was traced. That Garrison or anyone
connected with him ever incited the slaves to revolt, or said
a word intentionally which could lead to servile war, seems to
be utterly untrue. His preaching to the slaves, on the
contrary, was always patience, submission, abstinence from
violence, while in his own moral code he carried
non-resistance to an extreme. Moreover, his championship held
out hope, and what goads to insurrection is despair."
Goldwin Smith,
William Lloyd Garrison,
pages 60-65.
"Mr. Emerson once said, 'Eloquence is dog-cheap in
anti-slavery meetings.' … On the platform you would always see
Garrison; with him was … Sam May. Stephen S. Foster was always
there. … Parker Pilsbury, James Buffum, Arnold Buffum, Elizur
Wright, Henry C. Wright, Abigail Kelley, Lucy Stone, Theo. D.
Weld, the sisters Grimké, from South Carolina; John T.
Sargent, Mrs. Chapman, Mrs. Lydia M. Child, Fred Douglas, Wm.
W. Brown and Francis Jackson. The last was a stern Puritan,
conscientious, upright, clear-minded, universally respected.
Edmund Quincy also was there, and he never spoke without
saying something that had a touch of wit as well as of logic.
Oliver Johnson … was one of the very first members of the
Society. Theodore Parker, Samuel J. May, John Pierpont,
Charles L. Stearns, Charles L. Redwood, George Thompson
(another wonderfully eloquent man), and, above all, Wendell
Phillips."
J. F. Clarke,
Anti-Slavery Days,
chapter 3.
See, also, SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.
{3371}
A. D. 1830.
The Fifth Census.
Total population, 12,866,020 (being about 33½ per cent. more
than in 1820), classed and distributed as follows:
North.
White. Free black. Slave.
Connecticut. 289,603 8,047 25
Illinois. 155,061 1,637 747
Indiana. 339,399 3,629 3
Maine 398,263 1,190 2
Massachusetts. 603,359 7,048 1
Michigan. 31,346 261 32
New Hampshire. 268,721 604 3
New Jersey. 300,266 18,303 2,254
New York. 1,873,663 44,870 75
Ohio. 928,329 9,568 6
Pennsylvania. 1,309,900 37,930 403
Rhode Island. 93,621 3,561 17
Vermont. 279,771 881 0
Total 6,871,302 137,529 3,568
South.
White. Free black. Slave.
Alabama. 190,406 1,572 117,549
Arkansas. 25,671 141 4,576
Delaware. 57,601 15,855 3,292
District of Columbia. 27,563 6,152 6,119
Florida. 18,385 844 15,501
Georgia. 296,806 2,486 217,531
Kentucky. 517,787 4,917 165,213
Louisiana. 89,441 16,710 109,588
Maryland. 291,108 52,938 102,994
Mississippi 70,443 519 65,659
Missouri. 114,795 569 25,091
North Carolina. 472,843 19,543 245,601
South Carolina. 257,863 7,921 315,401
Tennessee. 535,746 4,555 141,603
Virginia. 694,300 47,348 469,757
Total 3,660,758 182,070 2,005,475

In the decade between 1820 and 1830 the immigrant arrivals in
the United States, as officially recorded, numbered 143,439,
of which 75,803 were from the British Islands. Prior to 1821,
there is no official record of immigration.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1830-1831.
The first railroads.
See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1832.
The Black Hawk War.
See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1832.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1832.
The prospective surplus and necessary tariff reduction.
Clay's delusive measure.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1832.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1832.
Twelfth Presidential Election.
Re-election of General Jackson.
General Jackson, renominated by his party almost without
question, was re-elected over three competitors, the popular
vote being as follows: Andrew Jackson, Democrat, 687,502;
Henry Clay, National Republican, 530,189; William Wirt,
Anti-Masonic, 33,108; John Floyd (voted for only in South
Carolina, where electors were chosen by the legislature). The
vote in the electoral college stood: Jackson 219, Clay 49,
Floyd 11, Wirt 7. Martin Van Buren was elected Vice President.
"This election is notable for several reasons. It marks the
beginning of the system of national nominating conventions; it
gave Jackson a second term of office, in which he was to
display his peculiar qualities more conspicuously than ever;
it compacted and gave distinct character to the new Democratic
party; and it practically settled directly the fate of the
Bank of the United States, and indirectly the question of
nullification. Jackson was easily re-elected, for he had
established a great popularity, and the opposition was
divided. A new party came into the field, and marked its
advent by originating the national nominating convention. This
was the Anti-Masonic party".
See NEW YORK: A. D.1826-1832.
Both the Democratic and the National Republican parties
adopted the invention of the Anti-Masons, and made their
nominations for the first time by the agency of great national
conventions.
W. Wilson,
Division and Reunion, 1829-1889,
page 62.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.
President Jackson's overthrow of the United States Bank.
The removal of the Deposits.
"The torrents of paper-money issued during the revolutionary
war, which sunk in value to nothing, converted the old
prejudice against paper promises-to-pay into an aversion that
had the force of an instinct. To this instinctive aversion, as
much as to the constitutional objections urged by Mr.
Jefferson and his disciples, was owing the difficulty
experienced by Alexander Hamilton in getting his first United
States bank chartered. Hence, also, the refusal of Congress to
recharter that bank in 1811. Hence the unwillingness of Mr.
Madison to sanction the charter of the second bank of the
United States in 1816. But the bank was chartered in 1816, and
went into existence with the approval of all the great
republican leaders, opposed only by the extreme Jeffersonians
and by the few federalists who were in public life. … But,
long before General Jackson came into power, the bank appeared
to have lived down all opposition. In the presidential
campaign of 1824 it was not so much as mentioned, nor was it
mentioned in that of 1828. … At the beginning of the
administration of General Jackson, the Bank of the United
States was a truly imposing institution. Its capital was
thirty-five millions. The public money deposited in its vaults
averaged six or seven millions; its private deposits, six
millions more; its circulation, twelve millions; its
discounts, more than forty millions a year; its annual
profits, more than three millions. Besides the parent bank at
Philadelphia, with its marble palace and hundred clerks, there
were 25 branches in the towns and cities of the Union. … Its
bank-notes were as good as gold in every part of the country.
… The bank and its branches received and disbursed the entire
revenue of the nation. … There is a tradition in Washington to
this day, that General Jackson came up from Tennessee to
Washington, in 1829, resolved on the destruction of the Bank
of the United States, and that he was only dissuaded from
aiming a paragraph at it in his inaugural address by the
prudence of Mr. Van Buren. … General Jackson had no thought of
the bank until he had been President two months. He came to
Washington expecting to serve but a single term, during which
the question of re-chartering the bank was not expected to
come up.
{3372}
The bank was chartered in 1816 for twenty years, which would
not expire until 1836." But, in 1829, the influence of Isaac
Hill, one of the so-called "Kitchen Cabinet" at Washington,
involved the irascible President in an endeavor to bring about
the removal of Jeremiah Mason, a political opponent, who had
been appointed to the presidency of the branch of the United
States Bank at Portsmouth, New Hampshire. "The correspondence
began in June and ended in October. I believe myself warranted
in the positive assertion, that this correspondence relating
to the desired removal of Jeremiah Mason was the direct and
real cause of the destruction of the bank."
J. Parton,
Life of Andrew Jackson,
volume 3, chapter 20.
"As soon as the issue between him and the Bank of the United
States was declared, Jackson resolved that the bank must be
utterly destroyed. The method was suggested by Kendall and
Blair, of the Kitchen Cabinet. It was to cripple the available
means of the bank by withdrawing from it and its branches the
deposits of public funds. In the message of December, 1832,
Jackson had expressed his doubt as to the safety of the
government deposits in the bank, and recommended an
investigation. The House, after inquiry, resolved on March 2,
by 109 to 46 votes, that the deposits were safe. The bank was
at that period undoubtedly solvent, and there seemed to be no
reason to fear for the safety of the public money in its
custody. But Jackson had made up his mind that the bank was
financially rotten; that it had been employing its means to
defeat his reëlection; that it was using the public funds in
buying up members of Congress for the purposes of securing a
renewal of its charter, and of breaking down the
administration; and that thus it had become a dangerous agency
of corruption and a public enemy. Therefore the public funds
must be withdrawn, without regard to consequences. But the law
provided that the public funds should be deposited in the Bank
of the United States or its branches, unless the Secretary of
the Treasury should otherwise 'order and direct,' and in that
case the Secretary should report his reasons for such
direction to Congress. A willing Secretary of the Treasury was
therefore needed. In May, 1833, Jackson reconstructed his
Cabinet for the second time. … For the Treasury Department
Jackson selected William J. Duane of Philadelphia, who was
known as an opponent of the bank. Jackson, no doubt, expected
him to be ready for any measure necessary to destroy it. In
this he was mistaken. Duane earnestly disapproved of the
removal of the deposits as unnecessary, and highly dangerous
to the business interests of the country. … A majority of the
members of the Cabinet thought the removal of the deposits
unwise. … In the business community there seemed to be but one
voice about it. The mere rumor that the removal of the
deposits was in contemplation greatly disturbed the money
market. But all this failed to stagger Jackson's resolution. …
The Cabinet, with the exception of the Secretary of the
Treasury, bowed to Jackson's will. But Duane would not shelter
himself behind the President's assumed responsibility to do an
act which, under the law, was to be his act. He also refused
to resign. If he had to obey or go, he insisted upon being
removed. Jackson then formally dismissed him, and transferred
Roger B. Taney from the attorney generalship to the treasury.
Benjamin F. Butler of New York, a friend of Van Buren, was
made Attorney General. Taney forthwith ordered the removal of
the deposits from the Bank of the United States; that is to
say, the public funds then in the bank were to be drawn out as
the government required them, and no new deposits to be made
in that institution. The new deposits were to be distributed
among a certain number of selected state banks, which became
known as the 'pet banks.' … The money market became stringent.
Many failures occurred. The general feeling in business
circles approached a panic." But the very disturbance was
charged upon the Bank, itself; the people rallied to the
support of their favorite, "Old Hickory," and when the
national charter of the Bank expired, in March, 1836, there
was no hope of its renewal. It obtained a charter from the
State of Pennsylvania, and continued business as a State
institution until it went to pieces in the general commercial
shipwreck of 1837-41.
C. Schurz,
Life of Henry Clay,
chapter 15 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
W. G. Sumner,
Andrew Jackson as a Public Man,
chapters 11-14.
T. H. Benton,
Thirty Years' View,
volume 1, chapters 49, 56, 64-67, 77, and 92-111.
M. St. C. Clarke and D. A. Hall,
History of the Bank of the United States.
See, also, MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1817-1833.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1834.
Organization of the Whig Party.
The largest section of the opposition to the Jacksonian
Democracy "was organized in 1834 as the Whig party. According
to the 'Whig Almanac' for 1838, the party as then constituted
comprised: '(1) Most of those who, under the name of National
Republicans, had previously been known as supporters of Adams
and Clay, and advocates of the American system [of
tariff-protection]; (2) Most of those who, acting in defence
of what they deemed the assailed or threatened rights of the
States, had been stigmatized as Nullifiers, or the less
virulent State Rights' men, who were thrown into a position of
armed neutrality towards the administration by the doctrines
of the proclamation of 1832 against South Carolina; (3) A
majority of those before known as Anti-Masons; (4) Many who
had up to that time been known as Jackson men, but who united
in condemning the high-handed conduct of the Executive, the
immolation of Duane, and the subserviency of Taney; (5)
Numbers who had not before taken any part in politics, but who
were now awakened from their apathy by the palpable
usurpations of the Executive and the imminent peril of our
whole fabric of constitutional liberty and national
prosperity.' It was not to be expected that a party composed
of such various elements would be able to unite on one
candidate with heartiness; and, as the event proved, it was
necessary that some time should elapse before anything like
homogeneity could be given to the organization. Nullification
was not popular among the Whigs of the North, nor did the
State Rights' people of South Carolina and other States care
about the war on the bank and the removal of the deposits."
E. Stanwood,
History of Presidential Elections,
chapter 14.
{3373}
"It was now felt instinctively that, in the existing struggle
between the parties actually arrayed against each other, and
in the principles and doctrines of those who were in power,
there was a peculiar fitness in the revival of a term which,
on both sides of the Atlantic, had been historically
associated with the side of liberty against the side of power.
The revival of the name of Whigs was sudden, and it was a
spontaneous popular movement. In progress of time, it enabled
the public men who were leading the opposition to the party of
the Administration to consolidate an organization of distinct
political principles, and to strengthen it by accessions from
those who had found reason to be dissatisfied with the
opinions prevailing among the friends of the President."
G. T. Curtis,
Life of Daniel Webster,
volume 1, page 499.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835.
First Petitions for the Abolition of Slavery
in the District of Columbia.
Exclusion of Antislavery literature from the Mails.
"It was during the Twenty-third Congress, 1835, that the
abolition of slavery, especially in the District of Columbia,
may be said to have begun to move the public mind at the
North. The first petitions presented to Congress for the
abolition of slavery, at least the first to attract attention,
were presented by Mr. Dickson, from the Canandaigua district,
New York, who addressed the House in support of the prayer of
the petitioners. Perhaps his speech, more than the petition he
presented, served to stir up a feeling on the part of Southern
men, and to cause other and numerous similar petitions to be
gotten up at the North and sent to Congress. … The labors of
the enemies of slavery, or 'Abolitionists,' had commenced, and
by indefatigable men who believed they were serving God and
the cause of humanity, and consequently it was with them a
labor of conscience and duty, with which nothing should be
allowed to interfere. Instead of petitions to Congress, they
now sent large boxes of tracts, pamphlets, and various
publications which the Southern people denominated
'incendiary,' to the post-office at Charleston, South
Carolina, and other cities, to be distributed, as directed, to
various persons. This increased the complaints and
inflammatory articles in the Southern papers. The publications
thus sent were stopped in the post-office, and the postmasters
addressed the head of the department, Amos Kendall, on the
subject, who replied that though the law authorized the
transmission of newspapers and pamphlets through the mail, yet
the law was intended to promote the general good of the
public, and not to injure any section; and intimated that,
such being the effect of these publications at the South,
postmasters would be justified in withholding them."
N. Sargent,
Public Men and Events, 1817-1853,
volume 1, page 294-295.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1837.
The inflation of credits, and Speculation.
The great collapse.
"When the United States Bank lost the government deposits,
late in 1833, they amounted to a little less than $10,000,000.
On January 1, 1835, more than a year after the state banks
took the deposits, they had increased to a little more than
$10,000,000. But the public debt being then paid and the outgo
of money thus checked, the deposits had by January 1, 1836,
reached $25,000,000, and by June 1, 1836, $41,500,000. This
enormous advance represented the sudden increase in the sales
of public lands, which were paid for in bank paper, which in
turn formed the bulk of the government deposits. … The
increase in the sales of public lands was the result of all
the organic causes and of all the long train of events which
had seated the fever of speculation so profoundly in the
American character of the day. … The increase of government
deposits was only fuel added to the flames. The craze for
banks and credits was unbounded before the removal of the
deposits had taken place, and before their great increase
could have had serious effect. … The insanity of speculation
was in ample though unobserved control of the country while
Nicholas Biddle [President of the United States Bank] still
controlled the deposits, and was certain to reach a climax
whether they stayed with him or went elsewhere. … The
distribution of the surplus among the states by the law of
1836 was the last and in some respects the worst of the
measures which aided and exaggerated the tendency to
speculation. By this bill, all the money above $5,000.000 in
the treasury on January 1, 1837, was to be 'deposited' with
the states in four quarterly installments commencing on that
day. … From the passage of the deposit bill in June, 1836,
until the crash in 1837, this superb donation of thirty-seven
millions was before the enraptured and deluded vision of the
country. Over nine millions and a quarter to be poured into
'improvements' or loaned to the needy,—what a luscious
prospect! The lesson is striking and wholesome, and ought not
to be forgotten, that, when the land was in the very midst of
these largesses, the universal bankruptcy set in. During 1835
and 1836 there were omens of the coming storm. Some perceived
the rabid character of the speculative fever. William L.
Marcy, governor of New York, in his message of January, 1836,
answering the dipsomaniac cry for more banks, declared that an
unregulated spirit of speculation had taken capital out of the
state; but that the amount so transferred bore no comparison
to the enormous speculations in stocks and in real property
within the state. … The warning was treated contemptuously;
but before the year was out the federal administration also
became anxious, and the increase in land sales no longer
signified to Jackson an increasing prosperity. … So Jackson
proceeded with his sound defense of the famous specie
circular, long and even still denounced as the 'causa cansans'
of the crisis of 1837. By this circular, issued on July 11,
1836, the secretary of the treasury had required payment for
public lands to be made in specie, with an exception until
December 15, 1836, in favor of actual settlers and actual
residents of the state in which the lands were sold. …
Jackson's specie circular toppled over the house of cards,
which at best could have stood but little longer. … An
insignificant, part of the sales had been lately made to
settlers. They were chiefly made to speculators. … Of the real
money necessary to make good the paper bubble promises of the
speculators not one tenth part really existed. Banks could
neither make their debtors pay in gold and silver, nor pay
their own notes in gold and silver. So they suspended. The
great and long concealed devastation of physical wealth and of
the accumulation of legitimate labor by premature improvements
and costly personal living, became now quickly apparent.
Fancied wealth sank out of sight."
E. M. Shepard,
Martin Van Buren,
chapter 8.
ALSO IN:
W. G. Sumner,
History of American Currency,
pages 102-161.
F. A. Walker,
Money,
chapter 21.
C. Juglar,
Brief History of Panics,
page 58.
{3374}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1843.
The Second Seminole War.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1835-1843.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.
The Atherton Gag.
"At this time [1835-36], the Northern abolitionists sent
petitions to Congress for the abolition of slavery in the
District of Columbia. They contended that as this territory
was under the control of the United States' Government, the
United States was responsible for slavery there; and that the
Free States were bound to do what they could to have slavery
brought to an end in that District. But the Slave States were
not willing to have anything said on the subject, so they
passed what was called a 'gag' law in the House of
Representatives, and ruled that all petitions which had any
relation to slavery should be laid on the table without being
debated, printed or referred. John Quincy Adams opposed this
rule resolutely, maintaining that it was wrong and
unconstitutional. … He continued to present petitions, as
before, for the abolition of slavery in the District. When the
day came for petitions he was one of the first to be called
upon; and he would sometimes occupy nearly the whole hour in
presenting them, though each one was immediately laid on the
table. One day he presented 511."
J. F. Clarke,
Anti-Slavery Days,
page 45.
The gag-law has sometimes taken the name of the Atherton gag
from its New Hampshire author.
W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
Popular History of the United States,
volume 4, page 338.
ALSO IN:
J. H. Gidding,
History of the Rebellion,
pages 104-124.
J. T. Morse, Jr.,
John Quincy Adams,
pp. 246-280.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.
Admission of Arkansas into the Union.
See ARKANSAS: A. D. 1819-1836.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.
Jackson's administration reviewed.
"What of the administration as a whole? Parton's view is as
follows: 'I must avow explicitly the belief that,
notwithstanding the good done by General Jackson during his
presidency, his elevation to power was a mistake on the part
of the people of the United States. The good which he effected
has not continued, while the evil which he began remains.'
Sumner, in commenting on 'Jackson's modes of action in his
second term,' says: 'We must say of Jackson that he stumbled
along through a magnificent career, now and then taking up a
chance without really appreciating it; leaving behind him
disturbed and discordant elements of good and ill just fit to
produce turmoil and dis·aster in the future.' Later he adds:
'Representative institutions are degraded on the Jacksonian
theory just as they are on the divine-right theory, or on the
theory of the democratic empire. There is not a worse
perversion of the American system of government conceivable
than to regard the President as the tribune of the people.'
The view of von Holst may be inferred from the following
passages: 'In spite of the frightful influence, in the real
sense of the expression, which he exercised during the eight
years of his presidency, he neither pointed out nor opened new
ways to his people by the superiority of his mind, but only
dragged them more rapidly onward on the road they had long
been travelling, by the demoniacal power of his will.' The
meaning of the bank struggle is thus defined: 'Its
significance lay in the elements which made Jackson able
actually and successfully to assert his claims, in conflict
both with the constitution and with the idea of republicanism,
to a position between Congress and the people as patriarchal
ruler of the republic.' Elsewhere he tells us that the 'curse
of Jackson's administration' is that it weakened respect for
law; that 'the first clear symptom' of 'the decline of a
healthy political spirit' was the election and re-election of
Jackson to the presidency; that his administration paved a
'broad path for the demoralizing transformation of the
American democracy'; and that 'his "reign" receives the stamp
which characterizes it precisely from the fact that the
politicians knew how to make his character, with its texture
of brass, the battering-ram with which to break down the last
ramparts which opposed their will.' According to Parton,
Sumner, and von Holst, as I understand them, the net result of
Jackson's influence upon the American people was to hasten
their progress toward political ruin. I think this conclusion
erroneous. The gravest accusation against Jackson is, that his
influence undermined respect for law. It is plausibly argued
that, since he himself was impatient of authority, his example
must have stimulated lawlessness in his followers. It may be
urged, in reply, that the history of the country does not
support the charge. The worst exhibitions of general
lawlessness which have disgraced the United States were the
anti-abolitionist mobs of Jackson's own day—for which he was
not responsible. Since then, the American people, in spite of
the demoralizations of the war and reconstruction periods,
have steadily grown in obedience to law. … It is a curious
circumstance that the relation of Jackson to sectionalism has
received very little attention; and yet the growth of
sectionalism, i. e., the tendency to divide the Union into two
portions, politically separate and independent, is the fact
which, from the Missouri Compromise of 1820 to the ordinances
of secession in 1860, gives our political history its
distinctive character. The one important question concerning
Jackson, as indeed concerning every public man during the
forty years which precede the Civil War, is: What did he do
towards saving the Union from sectionalism? … Jackson came
before the country as a disciple of Jefferson, and therefore
as a believer in state rights. There was, it is true, much in
his temper and situation which favored centralization;
nevertheless, he was an honest, though moderate and somewhat
inconsistent Jeffersonian, and he won and retained the
confidence of the state-rights element in the democratic
party. Moreover, he identified himself with the newly
enfranchised and poorer citizens just rising to political
self-consciousness. In these ways, his following came to
include a large majority of his fellow-citizens, and, what was
of the utmost importance, by far the larger proportion of
those whose political character and opinions were as yet
plastic. … Jackson became, to a degree never realized by any
other man in our history, the trusted leader and teacher of
the masses. … This intimate relation to the people, and this
unparalleled power over the people, Jackson used to impress
upon them his own love of the Union and his own hatred of
sectionalism. … His character was altogether national. It is
easy to think of Calhoun as a southerner and a South
Carolinian; but it would not be easy to think of Jackson as
belonging to Tennessee or to the border states.
{3375}
The distribution of his support in the election of 1832 is
instructive. New Hampshire, New York and Pennsylvania, as well
as Tennessee, Georgia, Missouri, were Jackson's states. He was
not looked upon as the representative of any particular
section. His policy as President showed no trace of
sectionalism. Its aim was the welfare of the masses
irrespective of section. To him state lines had little
meaning; sectional lines, absolutely none. There is another
way in which he rendered great though unconscious service to
the cause of national unity: he made the government, hitherto
an unmeaning abstraction, intelligible and attractive to the
people. … The chief value, then, of Jackson's political

career, was its educational effect. His strong conviction of
the national character of the Union, his brave words and acts
in behalf of the rights of the Union, sank deep into the
hearts of followers and opponents."
A. D. Morse,
Political Influence of Andrew Jackson
(Political Science Quarterly, June, 1886).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.
Thirteenth Presidential Election.
Martin Van Buren chosen.
"As Vice-president, Van Buren was at the side of Jackson
during his second term as President. It was the period of the
first experiment in producing panics; of reckless expansions
of the currency; of extravagant speculation; of an
accumulating surplus revenue; of the last struggles of the
Bank of the United States for the continuance of its powers.
There was not a difficult question on which Jackson did not
open his mind to the Vice-president with complete and
affectionate confidence. He has often been heard to narrate
incidents illustrating the prompt decision and bold judgment
of his younger friend; and in those days of vehement conflicts
between the power of the people and interests embodied against
that power, the daring energy of the one was well united with
the more tranquil intrepidity of the other. How fully this was
recognized by the people appears from the action of the
Democratic party of the Union. In May, 1835, it assembled in
convention at Baltimore, and by a unanimous vote placed Van
Buren in nomination as their candidate for the Presidency. …
The Democracy of the Union supported Van Buren with entire
unanimity. Out of two hundred and eighty-six electoral votes
he received one hundred and seventy; and, for the first time,
the Democracy of the North saw itself represented in the
Presidential chair. Electoral votes were given for Van Buren
without regard to geographical divisions: New York and
Alabama, Missouri and Maine, Virginia and Connecticut, were
found standing together. His election seemed friendly to the
harmony and the perpetuity of the Union."
G. Bancroft,
Martin Van Buren.
chapter 5.
Mr. Van Buren received a clear majority of the popular vote
cast at the election, namely, 762,678, against 735,651 cast in
opposition, but divided between four Whig candidates, namely,
William H. Harrison, who received 73 electoral votes, Hugh L.
White, who received 26, Daniel Webster who received 14, and
Willie P. Mangum, who received 11. Richard M. Johnson was
chosen Vice President.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1837.
Admission of Michigan into the Union.
See MICHIGAN: A. D. 1837.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1837.
The introduction of the Sub-treasury system.
"When the banks went down, they had the government deposits:
this was in May, 1837. Van Buren's administration was only two
months old. The President was a warm admirer of Jackson, and
had formally announced that he would continue his
predecessor's policy with respect to the management of the
deposits. But the 'experiment' had suddenly culminated. The
government deposits were not in its control, and could not be
regained; their transfer from one part of the country to
another had ceased. … Once more, therefore, the government was
confronted with a grave question touching its deposits and the
circulating medium. It now essayed a brand-new experiment.
This was nothing less than keeping the deposits itself, and
transferring and paying them as occasion required; while the
people were left to regulate the currency themselves. This was
a very wide departure from any former policy. The mode
proposed of keeping the public deposits may be briefly
described. The treasury building at Washington was to
constitute the treasury of the United States, and the public
money was to be kept within its vaults. The mint at
Philadelphia, the branch at New Orleans, the new custom-houses
in New York and Boston, were also to contain branch treasury
vaults. Places were also to be prepared at Charleston, St.
Louis, and elsewhere. The treasurer of the United States at
Washington, and the treasurers of the mints at Philadelphia
and New Orleans, were to be 'receivers-general,' to keep the
public money. … At the extra session of Congress in 1837, the
Executive recommended the sub-treasury experiment. Congress
refused to try it, although a majority in both Houses belonged
to the same political party as the President. Nevertheless,
the system was continued, without legislative sanction, until
1840, when Congress finally passed a bill legalizing the
measure. At the presidential election in 1840 a party
revolution occurred, and the sub-treasury system, which had
formed a prominent issue in the campaign, was unqualifiedly
condemned by the people. Congress repealed the law, and passed
a bill creating another national bank," which President Tyler
vetoed.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1841.
"Thus the keeping of the public money remained in the hands of
the government officials, without legislative regulation,
until the passage of the sub-treasury bill, in 1846. The
system established at that time has been maintained ever
since."
A. S. Bolles,
Financial History of the United States, 1789-1860,
book 3, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
T. H. Benton,
Thirty Years' View,
volume 2, chapters 29, 41, 64-65.
D. Kinley,
The Independent Treasury of the United States.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1837-1838.
Antislavery Petitions in the Senate.
Calhoun's Resolutions, forcing the issue.
"The movements for and against slavery in the session of
1837-1838 deserve to be noted, as of disturbing effect at the
time; and as having acquired new importance from subsequent
events. Early in the session a memorial was presented in the
Senate from the General Assembly of Vermont, remonstrating
against the annexation of Texas to the United States, and
praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of
Columbia—followed by many petitions from citizens and
societies in the Northern States to the same effect; and,
further, for the abolition of slavery in the Territories—for
the abolition of the slave trade between the States—and for
the exclusion of future slave States from the Union. …
{3376}
The question which occupied the Senate was as to the most
judicious mode of treating these memorials, with a view to
prevent their evil effects: and that was entirely a question
of policy, on which senators disagreed who concurred in the
main object. Some deemed it most advisable to receive and
consider the petitions—to refer them to a committee—and
subject them to the adverse report which they would be sure to
receive; as had been done with the Quakers' petitions at the
beginning of the government. Others deemed it preferable to
refuse to receive them. The objection raised to this latter
course was, that it would mix up a new question with the
slavery agitation which would enlist the sympathies of many
who did not co-operate with the Abolitionists—the question of
the right of petition. … Mr. Clay, and many others were of
this opinion; Mr. Calhoun and his friends thought otherwise;
and the result was, so far as it concerned the petitions of
individuals and societies, what it had previously been—a
half-way measure between reception and rejection—a motion to
lay the question of reception on the table. This motion,
precluding all discussion, got rid of the petitions quietly,
and kept debate out of the Senate. In the case of the memorial
from the State of Vermont, the proceeding was slightly
different in form, but the same in substance. As the act of a
State, the memorial was received; but after reception was laid
on the table. Thus all the memorials and petitions were
disposed of by the Senate in a way to accomplish the two-fold
object, first, of avoiding discussion; and, next, condemning
the object of the petitioners. It was accomplishing all that
the South asked; and if the subject had rested at that point,
there would have been nothing in the history of this session,
on the slavery agitation, to distinguish it from other
sessions about that period: but the subject was revived; and
in a way to force discussion, and to constitute a point for
the retrospect of history. Every memorial and petition had
been disposed of according to the wishes of the senators from
the slaveholding States; but Mr. Calhoun deemed it due to
those States to go further, and to obtain from the Senate
declarations which should cover all the questions of federal
power over the institution of slavery: although he had just
said that paper reports would do no good. For that purpose, he
submitted a series of resolves—six in number—which derive
their importance from their comparison, or rather contrast,
with others on the same subject presented by him in the Senate
ten years later; and which have given birth to doctrines and
proceedings which have greatly disturbed the harmony of the
Union, and palpably endangered its stability. The six
resolutions of this period (1837-1838) undertook to define the
whole extent of the power delegated by the States to the
federal government on the subject of slavery; to specify the
acts which would exceed that power; and to show the
consequences of doing anything not authorized to be done—
always ending in a dissolution of the Union. The first four of
these related to the States; about which, there being no
dispute, there was no debate. The sixth, without naming Texas,
was prospective, and looked forward to a case which might
include her annexation; and was laid upon the table to make
way for an express resolution from Mr. Preston on the same
subject. The fifth related to the territories, and to the
District of Columbia, and was the only one which excited
attention, or has left a surviving interest. It was in these
words: 'Resolved that the intermeddling of any State, or
States, or their citizens, to abolish slavery in this
District, or any of the territories, on the ground or under
the pretext that it is immoral or sinful, or the passage of
any act or measure of Congress with that view, would be a
direct and dangerous attack on the institutions of all the
slaveholding States.' The dogma of 'no power in Congress to
legislate upon the existence of slavery in territories' had
not been invented at that time; and, of course, was not
asserted in this resolve, intended by its author to define the
extent of the federal legislative power on the subject. The
resolve went upon the existence of the power, and deprecated
its abuse." Mr. Clay offered an amendment, in the nature of a
substitute, consisting of two resolutions, the first of which
was in these words: "'That the interference by the citizens of
any of the States, with the view to the abolition of slavery
in this District, is endangering the rights and security of
the people of the District; and that any act or measure of
Congress, designed to abolish slavery in this District, would
be a violation of the faith implied in the cessions by the
States of Virginia and Maryland—a just cause of alarm to the
people of the slaveholding States—and have a direct and
inevitable tendency to disturb and endanger the Union.' The
vote on the final adoption of the resolution was: (Yeas 37,
Nays 8]. … The second resolution of Mr. Clay applied to
slavery in a territory where it existed, and deprecated any
attempt to abolish it in such territory, as alarming to the
slave States, and as violation of faith towards its
inhabitants, unless they asked it; and in derogation of its
right to decide the question of slavery for itself when
erected into a State. This resolution was intended to cover
the case of Florida, and ran thus: 'Resolved that any attempt
of Congress to abolish slavery in any territory of the United
States in which it exists would create serious alarm and just
apprehension in the States sustaining that domestic
institution, and would be a violation of good faith towards
the inhabitants of any such territory who have been permitted
to settle with, and hold, slaves therein; because the people
of any such territory have not asked for the abolition of
slavery therein; and because, when any such territory shall be
admitted into the Union as a State, the people thereof shall
be entitled to decide that question exclusively for
themselves.' And the vote upon it was—[Yeas 35, Nays 9]. …
The general feeling of the Senate was that of entire
repugnance to the whole movement—that of the petitions and
memorials on the one hand, and Mr. Calhoun's resolutions on
the other. The former were quietly got rid of, and in a way to
rebuke, as well as to condemn their presentation; that is to
say, by motions (sustained by the body) to lay them on the
table. The resolutions could not so easily be disposed of,
especially as their mover earnestly demanded discussion, spoke
at large, and often himself; and 'desired to make the
question, on their rejection or adoption, a test question.'"
T. H. Benton,
Thirty Years' View,
volume 2, chapter 33.
{3377}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1840.
The Sixth Census.
Total population, 17,069,453 (exceeding that of 1830 by nearly
33 per cent.), classed and distributed as follows:
North.
White. Free black. Slave.
Connecticut. 301,856 8,105 17
Illinois. 472,254 3,598 331
Indiana. 678,698 7,165 3
Iowa. 42,924 172 16
Maine. 500,438 1,355 0
Massachusetts. 729,030 8,669 0
Michigan. 211,560 707 0
New Hampshire. 284,036 537 1
New Jersey. 351,588 21,044 674
New York. 2,378,890 50,027 4
Ohio. 1,502,122 17,342 3
Pennsylvania. 1,676,115 47,854 64
Rhode Island. 105,587 3,238 5
Vermont. 291,218 730 0
Wisconsin. 30,749 185 11
Total 9,557,065 170,728 1,129
South.
White. Free black. Slave.
Alabama. 335,185 2,039 253,532
Arkansas. 77,174 465 19,935
Delaware. 58,561 16,919 2,605
District of Columbia. 30,657 8,361 4,694
Florida. 27,943 817 25,717
Georgia. 407,695 2,753 280,944
Kentucky. 590,253 7,817 182,258
Louisiana. 158,457 25,502 168,452
Maryland. 318,204 62,078 89,737
Mississippi. 179,074 1,366 195,211
Missouri. 323,888 1,574 58,240
North Carolina. 484,870 22,732 245,817
South Carolina. 259,084 8,276 327,038
Tennessee. 640,627 5,524 183,059
Virginia. 740,858 49,852 449,087
Total 4,632,530 215,575 2,486,326
The number of immigrants arriving in the United States between
1830 and 1840, according to official reports, was 599,125, of
whom 283,191 were from the British Islands, and 212,497 from
other parts of Europe.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1840.
Fourteenth Presidential Election.
The Log-cabin and Hard-cider campaign.
William Henry Harrison, Whig, was elected President, over
Martin Van Buren, Democrat, and James G. Birney, candidate of
the "Liberty Party." The popular vote cast was: Harrison
1,275,016, Van Buren 1,129,102, Birney 7,069. The electoral
vote stood: Harrison 234, Van Buren 60, Birney none. John
Tyler was elected Vice President. In the early part of the
campaign, a Baltimore newspaper, making a foolish attempt to
cast ridicule on General Harrison, said that a pension of a
few hundred dollars and a barrel of hard cider would content
him in his log cabin for life. This fatuous remark gave the
Whigs a popular cry which they used with immense effect, and
"the log-cabin and hard-cider campaign," as it is known in
American history, was memorable for its song-singing
enthusiasm.—"If one could imagine a whole nation declaring a
holiday or season of rollicking for a period of six or eight
months, and giving themselves up during the whole time to the
wildest freaks of fun and frolic, caring nothing for business,
singing, dancing, and carousing night and day, he might have
some faint notion of the extraordinary scenes of 1840. It
would be difficult, if not impossible, otherwise to form even
a faint idea of the universal excitement, enthusiasm,
activity, turmoil, and restlessness which pervaded the country
during the spring, summer, and fall of that memorable year.
Log cabins large enough to hold crowds of people were built in
many places. Small ones, decorated with 'coon-skins, were
mounted on wheels and used in processions. The use of the
'coon-skins soon led to the adoption of the 'coon (raccoon)
itself as an emblem and adjunct of the log cabin, and its
'counterfeit presentment' was hoisted in all the Whig papers.
Meetings were everywhere, and every day, held in
neighborhoods, school-houses, villages, towns, counties,
cities, States, varying in number from ten to one hundred
thousand; and wherever there was a gathering there were also
speaking and singing. Ladies attended these meetings, or
conventions, in great numbers, and joined in the singing.
Farmers, with big teams and wagons, would leave their fields
and travel ten, twenty, or thirty miles, accompanied by their
families and neighbors, to attend a convention or a barbecue
and listen to distinguished orators. Crowds on the road,
multitudes in big wagons drawn by four, six, or eight horses,
made the welkin ring with their log-cabin songs. Nobody slept,
nobody worked, nobody rested; at least so it seemed, for all
were on the 'qui vive' and in motion. The entire population
seemed to be absorbed in the great duty of electing General
Harrison and thus changing the government. …
What has caused this great commotion, motion, motion,
Our country through?
It is the ball a rolling on
For Tippecanoe and Tyler too,
For Tippecanoe and Tyler too.'
The original or special friends of General Harrison very
naturally claimed that it was his popularity which produced
such an unprecedented 'commotion' 'our country through.' But
in this they were mistaken. The popularity of no one man could
have produced such a universal outpouring of the people from
day to day for weeks and months unceasingly, abandoning
everything else, and giving time and money unstintedly to
carry the election. General Harrison was but the
figure-head,—the representative of the Whig party for the time
being. Few had ever heard of him. The people knew from history
and the campaign papers that he had been a general in the then
late war with England; that he had won a victory at the battle
of Tippecanoe over the British and Indians, and also at the
battle of the Thames, in Canada, where Tecumseh, the noted
Indian warrior, was killed. This was enough to make a hero of
him by those who had a purpose to serve in doing so. As to his
fitness for the Presidency, the people knew nothing and cared
nothing. A change in the government was what they desired and
were determined to have."
N. Sargent,
Public Men and Events,
volume 2, pages 107-110.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1840-1841.
The McLeod case.
See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1841.
{3378}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1841.
The Death of President Harrison.
Breach between President Tyler and the Whig Party
which elected him.
President Harrison died suddenly on the 4th of April, 1841,
and Vice President John Tyler became President. Tyler was a
Calhoun Democrat in politics, although nominated and elected
by the Whigs, and the financial measures favored by the latter
were especially obnoxious to him. "Congress met May 31st,
1841. … A bill to abolish the Sub-Treasury of the previous
Administration was passed by both Houses and signed by the
President. A bill to incorporate 'The Fiscal Bank of the
United States' was passed by both Houses. It was weeded of
many of the objectionable features of the old United States
Bank, but was hardly less odious to the Democrats. It was
vetoed by the President. … An effort to pass the bill over the
veto did not receive a two-thirds majority. The Whig leaders,
anxious to prevent a party disaster, asked from the President
an outline of a bill which he would sign. After consultation
with the Cabinet, it was given, and passed by both Houses.
September 9th the President vetoed this bill also, and an
attempt to pass it over the veto did not receive a two-thirds
majority. The action of the President, in vetoing a bill drawn
according to his own suggestions, and thus apparently
provoking a contest with the party which had elected him,
roused the unconcealed indignation of the Whigs. The Cabinet,
with one exception [Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, who
remained in President Tyler's cabinet until May, 1843], at
once resigned. The Whig members of Congress issued Addresses
to the People, in which they detailed the reforms designed by
the Whigs and impeded by the President, and declared that 'all
political connection between them and John Tyler was at an end
from that day forth.' … The President filled the vacancies in
the Cabinet by appointing Whigs and Conservatives. His
position was one of much difficulty. His strict
constructionist opinions, which had prevented him from
supporting Van Buren, would not allow him to approve a
National Bank, and yet he had accepted the Vice-Presidency
from a party pledged to establish one. The over hasty
declaration of war by the Whigs put a stop to his
vacillations, and compelled him to rely upon support from the
Democrats. But only a few members of Congress, commonly known
as 'the corporal's guard,' recognized Tyler as a leader."
A. Johnston,
History of American Politics, 2d ed.,
chapter 15, sections 2-4.
ALSO IN:
L. G. Tyler,
Letters and Times of the Tylers,
volume 2, chapters 1-4.
C. Colton,
Life and Times of Henry Clay,
chapters 14-15.
T. H. Benton,
Thirty Years' View,
volume 2, chapters 80-85.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.
Victory of John Quincy Adams in defending the Right of Petition.
"January 21, 1842, Mr. Adams presented a petition from 45
citizens of Haverhill, Massachusetts, praying for the
dissolution of the Union, and moved it be referred to a select
committee, with instructions to report why the petition should
not be granted. There was at once great excitement and members
called out, 'Expel him,' 'Censure him.' After a good deal of
fruitless endeavor to accomplish something, the House
adjourned, and forty or fifty slaveholders met to decide what
kind of resolutions should be presented to meet the case.
Thomas F. Marshall of Kentucky was selected by this caucus
from Congress to propose the resolutions, which were to the
effect that for presenting such a petition to a body each of
whom had taken an oath to maintain the Constitution, Mr. Adams
was virtually inviting them to perjure themselves, and that
therefore he deserved the severest censure. Marshall supported
this with a very violent speech. Mr. Wise followed in another.
Then Mr. Adams arose and asked the clerk to read the first
paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, being the one
which recognizes the right of every people to alter or abolish
their form of Government when it ceases to accomplish its
ends. He said that those who believed that the present
Government was oppressive had the right (according to the
Declaration of Independence, on which the whole of our
national unity reposes), to petition Congress to do what they
believed was desirable; and all that Congress could properly
do would be to explain to them why such an act could not be
performed. He replied with great severity to Mr. Wise and said
that Mr. Wise had come into that Hall a few years before with
his hands dripping with the blood of one of his fellow beings.
In this he alluded to the part which Mr. Wise had taken in the
duel between Mr. Graves of Kentucky, and Cilley of Maine, in
which the latter had been killed. As for Mr. Marshall, who had
accused him of treason, he spoke of him with great scorn. 'I
thank God!' said he 'that the Constitution of my country has
defined treason, and has not left it to the puny intellect of
this young man from Kentucky to say what it is. If I were the
father of this gentleman from Kentucky, I should take him from
this House and put him to school where he might study his
profession for some years until he became a little better
qualified to appear in this place.' Mr. Adams had on his desk
a great many books and references prepared for his use by some
anti-slavery gentlemen then in Washington; after he had gone
on for some time with his speech he was asked how much more
time he would probably occupy. He replied 'I believe Mr. Burke
took three months for his speech on Warren Hastings'
indictment. I think I may probably get through in ninety days,
perhaps in less time.' Thereupon they thought it just as well
to have the whole thing come to an end and it was moved that
the matter should be laid on the table. Mr. Adams consented,
and it was done."
J. F. Clarke,
Anti-Slavery Days,
pages 57-59.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.
The tariff act.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1842.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.
The Ashburton Treaty with England.
Settlement of Northeastern boundary questions.
"It was arranged in December by the Peel ministry that Lord
Ashburton should be sent to Washington as a special minister
from Great Britain, with full powers to settle the boundary,
and all other pending disputes with the United States. …
Ashburton, formerly Alexander Baring, of the eminent banking
firm of Baring Brothers, and a son of its original founder,
was now an old man, who had retired on a princely fortune, and
being indifferent to fame, aspired only to bring these two
countries to more friendly terms. Like his father before him,
he had tact and plain good sense, and understood well the
American character, having married here during his youth. Lord
Ashburton arrived early the next April, and on the 13th of
June entered upon the duties of his mission.
{3379}
Maine and Massachusetts, the States most interested in the
disputed boundary, sent commissioners of their own to yield an
assent in this branch of the business. The whole business as
conducted at our capital had an easy and informal character.
Webster and Lord Ashburton represented alone their respective
governments; no protocols were used, nor formal records; and
the correspondence and official interviews went on after a
friendly fashion in the heat of summer, and while Congress was
holding its long regular session. … This Washington or
Ashburton treaty, as it is called to this day, bore date of
the day [August 9] when it was formally signed. It passed by
the Oregon or north-western boundary, a point on which harmony
was impossible, and this was the most pregnant omission of
all; it passed by the 'Caroline' affair; it ignored, too, the
'Creole' case, for Great Britain would not consent to
recognize the American claim of property in human beings. Nor,
on the other side, were the debts of delinquent States assumed
by the United States, as many British creditors had desired.
Mutual extradition in crimes under the law of nations, and the
delivery of fugitives from justice, were stipulated. But the
two chief features of this treaty were: a settlement of the
boundary between Great Britain and the United States on the
north-east, extending westward beyond the great lakes, and a
cruising convention for the mutual suppression of the
slave-trade. As to the northeast territory in dispute, which
embraced some 12,000 square miles, seven-twelfths, or about as
much as the King of the Netherlands had awarded, were set off
to the United States; Great Britain taking the residue and
securing the highlands she desired which frown upon the
Canadian Gibraltar, and a clear though circuitous route
between Quebec and Halifax. Our government was permitted to
carry timber down the St. John's River, and though becoming
bound to pay Maine and Massachusetts $300,000 for the strip of
territory relinquished to Great Britain, gained in return
Rouse's Point, on Lake Champlain, of which an exact survey
would have deprived us. By the cruising convention clause,
which the President himself bore a conspicuous part in
arranging, the delicate point of 'right of search' was
avoided; for instead of trusting Great Britain as the police
of other nations for suppressing the African slave-trade, each
nation bound itself to do its full duty by keeping up a
sufficient squadron on the African coast. It so happened that
Great Britain, by softening the old phrase 'right of search'
into 'right of visitation,' had been inducing other nations to
guarantee this police inspection of suspected slave vessels.
In December, 1841, ambassadors of the five great European
powers arranged in London a quintuple league of this
character. But France, hesitating to confirm such an
arrangement, rejected that league when the Ashburton treaty
was promulgated, and hastened to negotiate in its place a
cruising convention similar to ours on the slave-trade
suppression; nor was the right of search, against which
America had fought in the war of 1812, ever again invoked,
even as a mutual principle, until by 1862 the United States
had grown as sincere as Great Britain herself in wishing to
crush out the last remnant of the African traffic. This
cruising convention, however, left the abstract question of
search untouched, and in that light Sir Robert Peel defended
himself in Parliament. The Ashburton treaty was honorable, on
the whole, for each side; what it arranged was arranged
fairly, and what it omitted was deferred without prejudice. …
So satisfactory, in fine, was the treaty, despite all
criticism, that the Senate ratified it by more than a
three-fourths vote, and at a time, too, when the Whig Congress
was strongly incensed against the administration, and Webster
had made bitter enemies."
J. Schouler,
History of the United States,
volume 4, chapter 17, pages 400-403.
ALSO IN:
D. Webster,
Diplomatic and Official Papers.
G. T. Curtis,
Life of Webster,
chapters 28-29 (volume 2).
Treaties and Conventions between the United States and
other countries (edition of 1889),
pages 432-438.
I. Washburn, Jr.,
The Northeastern Boundary
(Maine Historical Society Collections, volume 8).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1844.
Fifteenth Presidential Election.
Choice of James K. Polk.
The Texas treaty of annexation had been held in committee in
the Senate "till the national conventions of the two parties
should declare themselves. Both conventions met in Baltimore,
in May, to name candidates and avow policies. The Whigs were
unanimous as to who should be their candidate: it could be no
one but Henry Clay. Among the Democrats there was a very
strong feeling in favor of the renomination of Van Buren. But
both Clay and Van Buren had been asked their opinion about the
annexation of Texas, both had declared themselves opposed to
any immediate step in that direction, and Van Buren's
declaration cost him the Democratic nomination. He could have
commanded a very considerable majority in the Democratic
convention, but he did not command the two-third's majority
required by its rules, and James K. Polk of Tennessee became
the nominee of his party." Polk had been Speaker of the House
of Representatives, and was honorably though slightly known to
the country. The only new issue presented in the party
"platforms" was offered by the Democrats in their resolution
demanding "'the reoccupation of Oregon and the reannexation of
Texas, at the earliest practicable period'; and this proved
the makeweight in the campaign. … The 'Liberty Party,' the
political organization of the Abolitionists, commanded now, as
it turned out, more than 60,000 votes. … Had the 'Liberty' men
in New York voted for Clay, he would have been elected."
W. Wilson,
Division and Reunion, 1829-1889,
section 73 (chapter 6).
Polk received of the popular votes, 1,337,243, against
1,299,062 cast for Henry Clay, Whig, and 62,300 cast for James
G. Birney, candidate of the Liberty Party. Electoral vote:
Polk, 170; Clay, 105; Birney, none. George M. Dallas was
elected Vice President.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1844-1845,
The annexation of Texas and the agitation preceding it.
See TEXAS: A. D. 1836-1845.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1844-1846.
The Oregon boundary question and its settlement.
See OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846.
{3380}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845.
Preserving the equilibrium between Free and Slave States.
Admission of Iowa and Florida.
"The slave-masters … had long pretended that the equilibrium
between the free and slave States must be preserved at all
hazards, and twice had they resorted to the violent device of
arbitrarily linking two measures that had nothing in common
for that purpose,—in 1820 combining the bills for the
admission of Missouri and Maine, and in 1836 those for the
admission of Michigan and Arkansas. In pursuance of the same
purpose and line of policy, they were now unwilling to receive
without a consideration the free State of Iowa, which had
framed a constitution in the autumn of 1844, and was asking
for admission. Some makeweight must be found before this
application could be complied with. This they managed to
discover in an old constitution, framed by the Territory of
Florida five years before. Though Florida was greatly
deficient in numbers, and her constitution was very
objectionable in some of its features, they seized this
occasion to press its claims, and to make its admission a
condition precedent to their consent that Iowa should be
received. The House Committee on Territories reported in favor
of the admission of the two in a single measure. In the
closing hours of the XXVIIIth Congress the bill came up for
consideration. … The constitution of Florida not only
expressly denied to the legislature the power to emancipate
slaves, but gave it the authority to prevent free colored
persons from immigrating into the State, or from being
discharged from vessels in her ports." All attempts to require
an amendment of the Florida constitution in these particulars
before recognizing that ill-populated territory as a State,
were defeated, and the bill admitting Florida and Iowa became
a law on the 3d of March, 1845.
H. Wilson,
History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
volume 2, chapter 1.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.
The Slavery question in the Democratic Party.
Hunkers and Barnburners.
The Wilmot Proviso.
"With Polk's accession and the Mexican war, the schism in the
Democratic ranks over the extension of American slave
territory became plainer. Even during the canvass of 1844 a
circular had been issued by William Cullen Bryant, David
Dudley Field, John W. Edmonds, and other Van Buren men,
supporting Polk, but urging the choice of congressmen opposed
to annexation. Early in the new administration the division of
New York Democrats into 'Barnburners' and 'Old Hunkers'
appeared. The former were the strong pro-Van Buren, anti-Texas
men, or 'radical Democrats,' who were likened to the farmer
who burned his barn to clear it of rats. The latter were the
'northern men with southern principles,' the supporters of
annexation, and the respectable, dull men of easy consciences,
who were said to hanker after the offices. The Barnburners
were led by men of really eminent ability and exalted
character: Silas Wright, then governor, Benjamin F. Butler,
John A. Dix, chosen in 1845 to the United States senate,
Azariah C. Flagg, the famous comptroller, and John Van Buren,
the ex-president's son. … Daniel S. Dickinson and William L.
Marcy were the chief figures in the Hunker ranks. Polk seemed
inclined, at the beginning, to favor, or at least to placate,
the Barnburners. … Jackson's death in June, 1845, deprived the
Van Buren men of the tremendous moral weight which his name
carried, and which might have daunted Polk. It perhaps also
helped to loosen the weight of party ties on the Van Buren
men. After this the schism rapidly grew. In the fall election
of 1845 the Barnburners pretty thoroughly controlled the
Democratic party of the state [of New York] in hostility to
the Mexican war, which the annexation of Texas had now
brought. Samuel J. Tilden of Columbia county, and a profound
admirer of Van Buren, became one of their younger leaders. Now
arose the strife over the 'Wilmot proviso,' in which was
embodied the opposition to the extension of slavery into new
territories. Upon this proviso the modern Republican party was
formed eight years later; upon it, fourteen years later,
Abraham Lincoln was chosen president; and upon it began the
war for the Union, out of whose throes came the vastly grander
and unsought beneficence of complete emancipation. David
Wilmot was a Democratic member of Congress from Pennsylvania;
in New York he would have been a Barnburner. In 1846 a bill
was pending to appropriate $3,000,000 for use by the president
in a purchase of territory from Mexico as part of a peace.
Wilmot proposed an amendment that slavery should be excluded
from any territory so acquired. All the Democratic members, as
well as the Whigs from New York, and most strongly the Van
Buren or Wright men, supported the proviso. The Democratic
legislature [of New York] approved it by the votes of the
Whigs with the Barnburners and the Soft Hunkers, the latter
being Hunkers less friendly to slavery. It passed the house at
Washington, but was rejected by the senate."
E. M. Shepard,
Martin Van Buren,
chapter 11.
In the slang nomenclature which New York politics have always
produced with great fertility Hard-Shell and Soft-Shell were
terms often used instead of Hunker and Barnburner.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1846.
The Walker Tariff.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1846-1861.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1846-1847.
War with Mexico.
Conquest of California and New Mexico.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1846; 1846-1847; and 1847;
also, CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847;
and NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1847.
Calhoun's aggressive policy of agitation, forcing the
Slavery issue upon the North.
His program of disunion.
"On Friday, the 19th of February [1847], Mr. Calhoun
introduced into the Semite his new slavery resolutions,
prefaced by an elaborate speech, and requiring an immediate
vote upon them. They were in these words: 'Resolved, That the
territories of the United States belong to the several States
composing this Union, and are held by them as their joint and
common property. Resolved, That Congress, as the joint agent
and representative of the States of this Union, has no right
to make any law, or do any act whatever, that shall directly,
or by its effects, make any discrimination between the States
of this Union, by which any of them shall be deprived of its
full and equal right in any territory of the United States
acquired or to be acquired. Resolved, That the enactment of
any law which should directly, or by its effects, deprive the
citizens of any of the States of this Union from emigrating,
with their property, into any of the territories of the United
States, will make such discrimination, and would, therefore,
be a violation of the constitution, and the rights of the
States from which such citizens emigrated, and in derogation
of that perfect equality which belongs to them as members of
this Union, and would tend directly to subvert the Union
itself.
{3381}
Resolved, That it is a fundamental principle in our political
creed, that a people, in forming a constitution, have the
unconditional right to form and adopt the government which
they may think best calculated to secure their liberty,
prosperity, and happiness; and that, in conformity thereto, no
other condition is imposed by the federal constitution on a
State, in order to be admitted into this Union, except that
its constitution shall be republican; and that the imposition
of any other by Congress would not only be in violation of the
constitution, but in direct conflict with the principle on
which our political system rests.' These resolutions, although
the sense is involved in circumlocutory phrases, are
intelligible to the point, that Congress has no power to
prohibit slavery in a territory, and that the exercise of such
a power would be a breach of the constitution, and leading to
the subversion of the Union. … Mr. Calhoun demanded the prompt
consideration of his resolutions, giving notice that he would
call them up the next day and press them to a speedy and final
vote. He did call them up, but never called for the vote, nor
was any ever had. … In the course of this year, and some
months after the submission of his resolutions in the Senate
denying the right of Congress to abolish slavery in a
territory, Mr. Calhoun wrote a letter to a member of the
Alabama Legislature, which furnishes the key to unlock his
whole system of policy in relation to the slavery agitation,
and its designs, from his first taking up the business in
Congress in the year 1835, down to the date of the letter; and
thereafter. The letter was in reply to one asking his opinion
'as to the steps which should be taken' to guard the rights of
the South. … It opens with this paragraph: 'I am much
gratified with the tone and views of your letter, and concur
entirely in the opinion you express, that instead of shunning,
we ought to court the issue with the North on the slavery
question. I would even go one step further, and add that it is
our duty—due to ourselves, to the Union, and our political
institutions, to force the issue on the North. We are now
stronger relatively than we shall be hereafter, politically
and morally. Unless we bring on the issue, delay to us will be
dangerous indeed. It is the true policy of those enemies who
seek our destruction. Its effects are, and have been, and will
be to weaken us politically and morally, and to strengthen
them. Such has been my opinion from the first. Had the South,
or even my own State backed me, I would have forced the issue
on the North in 1835, when the spirit of abolitionism first
developed itself to any considerable extent. It is a true
maxim, to meet danger on the frontier, in politics as well as
war. Thus thinking, I am of the impression, that if the South
act as it ought, the Wilmot Proviso, instead of proving to be
the means of successfully assailing us and our peculiar
institution, may be made the occasion of successfully
asserting our equality and rights, by enabling us to force the
issue on the North. Something of the kind was indispensable to
rouse and unite the South. On the contrary, if we should not
meet it as we ought, I fear, greatly fear, our doom will be
fixed. It would prove that we either have not the sense or
spirit to defend ourselves and our institutions.' The phrase
'forcing the issue' is here used too often, and for a purpose
too obvious, to need remark. The reference to his movement in
1835 confirms all that was said of that movement at the time
by senators from both sections of the Union. … At that time
Mr. Calhoun characterized his movement as defensive—as done in
a spirit of self-defence: it was then characterized by
senators as aggressive and offensive: and it is now declared
in this letter to have been so. He was then openly told that
he was playing into the hands of the abolitionists, and giving
them a champion to contend with, and the elevated theatre of
the American Senate for the dissemination of their doctrines,
and the production of agitation and sectional division. All
that is now admitted, with a lamentation that the South, and
not even his own State, would stand by him then in forcing the
issue. So that chance was lost. Another was now presented. The
Wilmot Proviso, so much deprecated in public, is privately
saluted as a fortunate event, giving another chance for
forcing the issue. The letter proceeds: 'But in making up the
issue, we must look far beyond the proviso. It is but one of
many acts of aggression, and, in my opinion, by no means the
most dangerous or degrading, though more striking and
palpable.' … So that, while this proviso was, publicly, the
Pandora's box which filled the Union with evil, and while it
was to Mr. Calhoun and his friends the theme of endless
deprecation, it was secretly cherished as a means of keeping
up discord, and forcing the issue between the North and the
South. Mr. Calhoun then proceeds to the serious question of
disunion, and of the manner in which the issue could be
forced. 'This brings up the question, how can it be so met,
without resorting to the dissolution of the Union? … There is,
in my opinion, but one way in which it can be met; and that is
… by retaliation.' … Then follows an argument to justify
retaliation. … Retaliation by closing the ports of the State
against the commerce of the offending State: and this called a
constitutional remedy, and a remedy short of disunion. … The
letter proceeds with further instructions upon the manner of
executing the retaliation: 'My impression is, that it should
be restricted to sea-going vessels, which would leave open the
trade of the valley of the Mississippi to New Orleans by
river, and to the other Southern cities by railroad; and tend
thereby to detach the North-western from the North-eastern
States.' … This confidential letter from Mr. Calhoun to a
member of the Alabama legislature of 1847, has come to light,
to furnish the key which unlocks his whole system of slavery
agitation which he commenced in the year 1835. That system was
to force issues upon the North under the pretext of
self-defence, and to sectionalize the South, preparatory to
disunion, through the instrumentality of sectional
conventions, composed wholly of delegates from the
slaveholding States."
T. H. Benton,
Thirty Years' View,
volume 2, chapters 167-168.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
Peace with Mexico.
The Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo.
The acquisition of Territory.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
Admission of Wisconsin into the Union.
See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
Increased reservation of public lands for School support.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1785-1880.
{3382}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
The Free Soil Convention at Buffalo and its nominations.
The "Barnburner" Democrats of New York, or Free Soilers as
they began to be called, met in convention at Utica, February
16, 1848, and chose delegates to the approaching national
Democratic Convention at Baltimore. In April the Barnburner
members of the Legislature issued an elaborate address,
setting forth the Free Soil principles of the Democratic
fathers. The authors of the address were afterwards known to
be Samuel J. Tilden and Martin and John Van Buren. The
national Democratic Convention assembled in May, 1848. "It
offered to admit the Barnburner and Hunker delegations
together to cast the vote of the State. The Barnburners
rejected the compromise as a simple nullification of the vote
of the State, and then withdrew. Lewis Cass was nominated for
president, the Wilmot proviso being thus emphatically
condemned. For Cass had declared in favor of letting the new
territories themselves decide upon slavery. The Barnburners,
returning to a great meeting in the City Hall Park at New
York, cried 'The lash has resounded through the halls of the
Capitol!' and condemned the cowardice of northern senators who
had voted with the South. … The delegates issued an address
written by Tilden, fearlessly calling Democrats to independent
action. In June a Barnburner convention met at Utica," which
named Van Buren for the Presidency and called a national
convention of all Free Soilers to meet at Buffalo, August 9,
1848. "Charles Francis Adams, the son of John Quincy Adams,
presided at the Buffalo convention; and in it Joshua R.
Giddings, the famous abolitionist, and Salmon P. Chase, were
conspicuous. To the unspeakable horror of every Hunker there
participated in the deliberations a negro, the Rev. Mr. Ward.
Butler [Benjamin F., of New York], reported the resolutions in
words whose inspiration is still fresh and ringing. … At the
close were the stirring and memorable words: 'We inscribe on
our banner, Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor, and Free Men;
and under it we will fight on and fight ever, until a
triumphant victory shall reward our exertions.' Joshua Leavitt
of Massachusetts, one of the 'blackest' of abolitionists,
reported to the convention the name of Martin Van Buren for
president." The nomination was acclaimed with enthusiasm, and
Charles Francis Adams was nominated for vice-president. "In
September, John A. Dix, then a Democratic senator, accepted
the Free-soil nomination for governor of New York. The
Democratic party was aghast. The schismatics had suddenly
gained great dignity and importance. … The Whigs had in June
nominated Taylor, one of the two heroes of the Mexican war. …
The anti-slavery Whigs hesitated for a time: but Seward of New
York and Horace Greeley in the New York Tribune finally led
most of them to Taylor, rather than, as Seward said, engage in
'guerrilla warfare' under Van Buren. … This launching of the
modern Republican party was, strangely enough, to include in
New York few besides Democrats."
E. M. Shepard,
Martin Van Buren,
chapter 11.
"The Buffalo Convention was one of the more important
upheavals in the process of political disintegration which
went steadily on between the years 1844, when the 'Birneyites'
deprived Henry Clay of the electoral vote of New York, and
1856, when the Whig party disappeared, and the pro-slavery
Democracy found itself confronted by the anti-slavery
Republican organization of the North. In 1848, though the Whig
party was already doomed, its time had not yet come. The Free
Soil movement of 1848 was, therefore, premature; and moreover,
as the result afterwards showed, there was something almost
ludicrous in a combination of 'Conscience Whigs' of
Massachusetts, in revolt over the nomination of the
slave-owning General Taylor, with the 'Barnburning' Democrats
of New York, intent only upon avenging on Cass the defeat of
Van Buren. None the less the Free Soil movement of 1848
clearly foreshadowed the Republican uprising of 1856, and of
the men who took part in the Buffalo convention an unusually
large proportion afterwards became prominent as political
leaders."
C. F. Adams,
Richard Henry Dana,
volume 1, chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
H. Wilson,
History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
volume 2, chapter 13.
J. W. Schuckers,
Life of Salmon P. Chase,
chapter 11.
R. B. Warden,
Life of Salmon P. Chase,
chapter 21.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848-1849.
Sixteenth Presidential Election.
Inauguration and death of General Taylor.
In the Presidential election of 1848, the Democratic party put
forward as its candidate Lewis Cass; the Whigs named General
Zachary Taylor; and the Free Soil Party placed Martin Van
Buren in nomination. That the Whig Party should again have set
aside its distinguished leader, Henry Clay, caused great grief
among his devoted followers and friends. "But there were those
in it who had grown gray in waiting for office under the
banner of Mr. Clay, and whose memories were refreshed with
what was effected by the éclat of military glory under General
Jackson. It was hard, and might seem ungrateful, to abandon a
great and long-tried leader. But the military feather waved
before their eyes, and they were tempted. … It needed a
leader, or a few leaders to give the signal of defection; and
they were not wanting. One after another of the great names of
the party fell off from Mr. Clay and inclined to General
Taylor; and when the national Whig Convention met at
Philadelphia, in June, 1848, to nominate a candidate for the
Presidency, the first ballot showed that seven out of twelve
of the Kentucky delegation, against the expectations and
wishes of their constituency, had deserted Mr. Clay, and gone
over to General Taylor. The influence of this fact was
great—perhaps decisive. For if Mr. Clay's own State was
against him, what could be expected of the other States? On
the fourth ballot General Taylor had 52 majority, and was
declared the nominee. … In November following, General Taylor
was elected President of the United States, and Millard
Fillmore Vice-President. As in the case of General Harrison,
who died in thirty days after his inauguration, so in the case
of General Taylor … he, too, died in sixteen months after he
had entered on the duties of his office."
C. Colton,
Life, Correspondence and Speeches of Henry Clay,
volume 3, chapter 4.
The popular vote cast at the election was, for Taylor,
1,360,099; Cass, 1,220,544; for Van Buren, 291,263. The
electoral vote was, for Taylor, 163; for Cass, 127; for Van
Buren, none. Millard Fillmore, elected Vice President,
succeeded to the Presidency on the death of General Taylor,
July 9, 1850.
O. O. Howard,
General Taylor,
chapters 21-24.
{3383}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
The Seventh Census.
Total population, 23,191,876, nearly 36 per cent. greater than

in 1840. The remnant of slavery in the northern States which
appears in this census, still lingering in New Jersey, was not
quite extinguished in the succeeding decade. The
classification and distribution of population was as follows:
North.
White. Free black. Slave.
California. 91,635 962 0
Connecticut. 363,099 7,693 0
Illinois. 846,034 5,436 0
Indiana. 977,154 11,262 0
Iowa. 191,881 333 0
Maine. 581,813 1,356 0
Massachusetts. 985,450 9,064 0
Michigan. 395,071 2,583 0
Minnesota. 6,038 39 0
New Hampshire. 317,456 520 0
New Jersey. 465,509 23,810 236
New York. 3,048,325 49,069 0
Ohio. 1,955,050 25,279 0
Oregon. 13,087 207 0
Pennsylvania. 2,258,160 53,626 0
Rhode Island. 143,875 3,670 0
Utah. 11,354 0 26
Vermont. 313,402 718 0
Wisconsin. 304,756 635 0
13,269,149 196,262 262
South.
White. Free black. Slave.
Alabama. 426,514 2,265 342,844
Arkansas. 162,189 608 47,100
Delaware. 71,169 18,073 2,290
District of Columbia. 37,941 10,059 3,687
Florida. 47,203 932 39,310
Georgia. 521,572 2,931 381,682
Kentucky. 761,413 10,011 210,981
Louisiana. 255,491 17,462 244,809
Maryland. 417,943 74,723 90,368
Mississippi. 295,718 930 309,878
Missouri. 592,004 2,618 87,422
New Mexico. 61,547 0 0
North Carolina. 553,028 27,463 288,548
South Carolina. 274,563 8,960 384,984
Tennessee. 756,836 6,422 239,459
Texas. 154,034 397 58,161
Virginia. 894,800 54,333 472,528
Total 6,283,965 238,187 3,204,051

The immigration in the decade preceding this census had risen
to 1,713,251 in number of persons, 1,047,763 coming from the
British Islands (mostly from Ireland), and 549,739 from other
parts of Europe.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
Henry Clay's last "Compromise."
Free California, and the Fugitive Slave Law.
Webster's Seventh of March Speech
and Seward's Declaration of the "Higher Law."
"In 1848 gold was discovered in California. The tide of
adventurers poured in. They had no slaves to take with them
and no desire to acquire any. In less than a year the newly
gathered people outnumbered the population of some of the
smaller states. They organized a state government with an
antislavery constitution, and demanded admission into the
Union. True, the greater part of the proposed state lies north
of 36° 30' [the dividing line of the Missouri Compromise], but
its climate, tempered by the Pacific Ocean, is of rare
mildness. If any part of the newly acquired territory should
be opened to slavery, it seemed that California was the part
best suited for it. If California repelled slavery, there was
small hope that the remainder of the new territory would
embrace it. Congress debated for ten months over the admission
of California. The threatened inequality in numbers of the
free and slave states was the central subject of contention,
and the Union seemed again in danger of disruption."
J. S. Landon,
Constitutional History and Government of the United States,
lecture 8.
"One day toward the close of January [January 29, 1850], Henry
Clay rose from his chair in the Senate Chamber, and waving a
roll of papers, with dramatic eloquence and deep feeling,
announced to a hushed auditory that he held in his hand a
series of resolutions proposing an amicable arrangement of all
questions growing out of the subject of slavery. Read and
explained by its author this plan of compromise was to admit
California, and to establish territorial governments in New
Mexico, and the other portions of the regions acquired from
Mexico, without any provisions for or against slavery—to pay
the debt of Texas and fix her western boundary—to declare
that it was 'inexpedient' to abolish slavery in the District
of Columbia, but 'expedient' to put some restrictions on the
slave trade there, to pass a new and more stringent fugitive
slave law, and to formally deny that Congress had any power to
obstruct the slave trade between the States. Upon this plan of
compromise and the modifications afterward made in it, began
that long debate, since become historic, which engrossed the
attention of Congress and the country for eight weary months.
At the outset, many of those who had threatened 'Disunion,'
opposed 'Clay's Compromise,' because it did not go far enough,
while the 'Wilmot Proviso' men were equally resolute in
opposing it, because it went too far. Seward with many other
Northern Whigs, adhered to the 'President's Plan' [which
simply favored the admission of California and New Mexico
under constitutions which he had invited their people to
frame], as being a much more just and speedy way of solving
the problem. Avowing himself unterrified by the threats of
'Disunion,' he insisted that neither 'Compromise' nor the
'Fugitive Slave Law' was necessary, and that it was both the
right and the duty of Congress to admit the Territories as
free States, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia,
and the slave trade between the States. Southern feeling was
predominant in the Senate Chamber, as it had been for many
years. Neither of the two great parties was opposed to
slavery, and the recognized leaders of both were men of
Southern birth. … Mr. Clay's resolutions, unsatisfactory as
they were, to anti-slavery men, at first met with objections
from Southern members. One 'deeply regretted the admission
that slavery did not exist in the territories.' Several would
'never assent to the doctrine that slaveholders could not go
there, taking their property with them.' Some questioned the
validity of the Mexican decree, abolishing slavery in New
Spain, and doubted the constitutionality of any attempt on the
part of Congress to exclude it. Prognostications and threats
of 'disunion' were freely made.
{3384}
On the other hand, there began to be signs of a growing
disposition, on the part of many Northern men, to give up the
'Proviso' for the sake of peace; and to follow the lead of Mr.
Clay. Conservative Southern Whigs were quite ready to meet
these half way. Seward's position was regarded as 'ultra' by
both classes; and it not unfrequently happened that, on
questions in the Senate relating to slavery, only three
Senators, Seward, Chase, and Hale, would be found voting
together, on one side, while all the other Senators present
were arrayed against them, on the other. Newspapers, received
from all parts of the country, showed that elsewhere, as well
as at the capital, the proposed compromise was an engrossing
topic. Great meetings were held at the North in support of it.
State Legislatures took ground, for and against it. Fresh fuel
was added to the heated discussion by a new 'Fugitive Slave
Law,' introduced by Senator Mason of Virginia, and by the talk
of Southern Conventions, and 'Secret Southern Caucuses.' …
March was an eventful month. Time enough had elapsed for each
Senator to receive, from the press and people of his State,
their response, in regard to Clay's proposed compromise.
Resolutions pro and con had come from different Legislatures.
… Each of the leaders in senatorial debate felt that the hour
had come for him to declare whether he was for or against it.
… Mr. Calhoun, though in failing health, obtained the floor
for a speech. Everybody awaited it with great interest,
regarding him as the acknowledged exponent of Southern
opinion. … An expectant throng filled the Senate Chamber. His
gaunt figure and attenuated features attested that he had
risen from a sick bed; but his fiery eyes and unshaken voice
showed he had no intention of abandoning the contest. In a few
words he explained that his health would not permit him to
deliver the speech he had prepared, but that 'his friend the
Senator behind him (Mason) would read it for him.' Beginning
by saying that he had 'believed from the first that the
agitation of the subject of slavery would, if not prevented by
some timely and effective measure, end in "disunion,"' the
speech opposed Clay's plan of adjustment; attacked the
President's plan; adverted to the growing feeling that the
South could not remain in Union 'with safety and honor';
pointed out the gradual snapping, one after another, of the
links which held the Union together, and expressed the most
gloomy forebodings for the future. Three days later a similar,
or greater, throng gathered to listen to Webster's great '7th
of March speech,' which has ever since been recorded as
marking an era in his life. He rose from his seat near the
middle of the chamber, wearing his customary blue coat with
metal buttons, and with one hand thrust into the buff vest,
stood during his opening remarks, as impassive as a statue;
but growing slightly more animated as he proceeded. Calm,
clear, and powerful, his sonorous utterances, while they
disappointed thousands of his friends at the North, lent new
vigor to the 'Compromisers,' with whom, it was seen, he would
henceforth act."
F. W. Seward,
Seward at Washington, 1846-1861,
chapter 16.
The first and longer part of Mr. Webster's speech was an
historical review of the slavery question, and an argument
maintaining the proposition, as he afterwards stated it in a
few words, that there is "not a square rod of territory
belonging to the United States the character of which, for
slavery, or no slavery is not already fixed by some
irrepealable law." The concluding part of his speech contained
the passages which caused most grief among and gave most
offense to his friends and admirers at the North. They are
substantially comprised in the quotations following,—together
with his eloquent declamation against the thought of
secession: Mr. President, in the excited times in which we
live, there is found to exist a state of crimination and
recrimination between the North and South. There are lists of
grievances produced by each; and those grievances, real or
supposed, alienate the minds of one portion of the country
from the other, exasperate the feelings, and subdue the sense
of fraternal affection, patriotic love, and mutual regard. I
shall bestow a little attention, Sir, upon these various
grievances existing on the one side and on the other. I begin
with complaints of the South. I will not answer, further than
I have, the general statements of the honor·able Senator from
South Carolina, that the North has prospered at the expense of
the South in consequence of the manner of administering this
government, in the collecting of its revenues, and so forth.
These are disputed topics, and I have no inclination to enter
into them. But I will allude to other complaints of the South,
and especially to one which has in my opinion just foundation;
and that is, that there has been found at the North, among
individuals and among legislators, a disinclination to perform
fully their constitutional duties in regard to the return of
persons bound to service who have escaped into the free
States. In that respect, the South, in my judgment, is right,
and the North is wrong. Every member of every Northern
legislature is bound by oath, like every other officer in the
country, to support the Constitution of the United States; and
the article of the Constitution which says to these States
that they shall deliver up fugitives from service is as
binding in honor and conscience as any other article. No man
fulfils his duty in any legislature who sets himself to find
excuses, evasions, escapes from this constitutional
obligation. I have always thought that the Constitution
addressed itself to the legislatures of the States or to the
States themselves. It says that those persons escaping to
other States 'shall be delivered up,' and I confess I have
always been of the opinion that it was an injunction upon the
States themselves. When it is said that a person escaping into
another State, and coming therefore within the jurisdiction of
that State, shall be delivered up, it seems to me the import
of the clause is, that the State itself, in obedience to the
Constitution, shall cause him to be delivered up. That is my
judgment. I have always entertained that opinion, and I
entertain it now. But when the subject, some years ago, was
before the Supreme Court of the United States, the majority of
the judges held that the power to cause fugitives from service
to be delivered up was a power to be exercised under the
authority of this government. I do not know, on the whole,
that it may not have been a fortunate decision. My habit is to
respect the result of judicial deliberations and the solemnity
of judicial decisions.
{3385}
As it now stands, the business of seeing that these fugitives
are delivered up resides in the power of Congress and the
national judicature, and my friend at the head of the
Judiciary Committee has a bill on the subject now before the
Senate, which with some amendments to it, I propose to
support, with all its provisions, to the fullest extent. And I
desire to call the attention of all sober-minded men at the
North, of all conscientious men, of all men who are not
carried away by some fanatical idea or some false impression,
to their constitutional obligations. I put it to all the sober
and sound minds at the North as a question of morals and a
question of conscience. What right have they, in their
legislative capacity or any other capacity, to endeavor to get
round this Constitution, or to embarrass the free exercise of
the rights secured by the Constitution to the persons whose
slaves escape from them? None at all; none at all. Neither in
the forum of conscience, nor before the face of the
Constitution, are they, in my opinion, justified in such an
attempt. … I repeat, therefore, Sir, that here is a
well-founded ground of complaint against the North, which
ought to be removed, which it is now in the power of the
different departments of this government to remove; which
calls for the enactment of proper laws authorizing the
judicature of this government, in the several States, to do
all that is necessary for the recapture of fugitive slaves and
for their restoration to those who claim them. … Complaint has
been made against certain resolutions that emanate from
legislatures at the North, and are sent here to us, not only
on the subject of slavery in this District, but sometimes
recommending Congress to consider the means of abolishing
slavery in the States. I should be sorry to be called upon to
present any resolutions here which could not be referable to
any committee or any power in Congress; and therefore I should
be unwilling to receive from the legislature of Massachusetts
any instructions to present resolutions expressive of any
opinion whatever on the subject of slavery, as it exists at
the present moment in the States, for two reasons: first,
be·cause I do not consider that the legislature of
Massachusetts has anything to do with it; and next, because I
do not consider that I, as her representative here, have
anything to do with it. It has become, in my opinion, quite
too common; and if the legislatures of the States do not like
that opinion, they have a great deal more power to put it down
than I have to uphold it; It has become in my opinion quite
too common a practice for the State legislatures to present
resolutions here on all subjects and to instruct us on all
subjects. There is no public man that requires instruction
more than I do, or who requires information more than I do, or
desires it more heartily; but I do not like to have it in too
imperative a shape. … Then Sir, there are the Abolition
societies, of which I am unwilling to speak, but in regard to
which I have very clear notions and opinions. I do not think
them useful. I think their operations for the last twenty
years have produced nothing good or valuable. At the same
time, I believe thousands of their members to be honest and
good men, perfectly well-meaning men. They have excited
feelings; they think they must do something for the cause of
liberty; and, in their sphere of action, they do not see what
else they can do than to contribute to an Abolition press, or
an Abolition society, or to pay an Abolition lecturer. I do
not mean to impute gross motives even to the leaders of these
societies, but I am not blind to the consequences of their
proceedings. I cannot but see what mischiefs their
interference with the South has produced. And is it not plain
to every man? Let any gentleman who entertains doubts on this
point recur to the debates in the Virginia House of Delegates
in 1832, and he will see with what freedom a proposition made
by Mr. Jefferson Randolph for the gradual abolition of slavery
was discussed in that body. Everyone spoke of slavery as he
thought; very ignominious and disparaging names and epithets
were applied to it. The debates in the House of Delegates on
that occasion, I believe, were all published. They were read
by every colored man who could read, and to those who could
not read, those debates were read by others. At that time
Virginia was not unwilling or afraid to discuss this question,
and to let that part of her population know as much of the
discussion as they could learn. That was in 1832. As has been
said by the honorable member from South Carolina, these
Abolition societies commenced their course of action in 1835.
It is said, I do not know how true it may be, that they sent
incendiary publications into the slave States; at any rate,
they attempted to arouse, and did arouse, a very strong
feeling; in other words they created great agitation in the
North against Southern slavery. Well, what was the result? The
bonds of the slaves were bound more firmly than before, their
rivets were more strongly fastened. Public opinion, which in
Virginia had begun to be exhibited against slavery, and was
opening out for the discussion of the question, drew back and
shut itself up in its castle. I wish to know whether any body
in Virginia can now talk openly as Mr. Randolph, Governor
McDowell, and others talked in 1832, and sent their remarks to
the press? We all know the fact, and we all know the cause;
and everything that these agitating people have done has been,
not to enlarge, but to restrain, not to set free, but to bind
faster, the slave population of the South. Again, Sir, the
violence of the Northern press is complained of. The press
violent! Why, Sir, the press is violent everywhere. There are
outrageous reproaches in the North against the South, and
there are reproaches as vehement in the South against the
North. Sir, the extremists of both parts of this country are
violent; they mistake loud and violent talk, for eloquence and
for reason. They think that he who talks loudest reasons best.
And this we must expect, when the press is free, as it is
here, and I trust always will be. … Well, in all this I see no
solid grievance, no grievance presented by the South, within
the redress of the government, but the single one to which I
have referred; and that is, the want of a proper regard to the
injunction of the Constitution for the delivery of fugitive
slaves. There are also complaints of the North against the
South. I need not go over them particularly. The first and
gravest is, that the North adopted the Constitution,
recognizing the existence of slavery in the States, and
recognizing the right, to a certain extent, of the
representation of slaves in Congress, under a state of
sentiment and expectation which does not now exist; and that,
by events, by circumstances, by the eagerness of the South to
acquire territory and extend her slave population, the North
finds itself, in regard to the relative influence of the South
and the North, of the free States and the slave States, where
it never did expect to find itself when they agreed to the
compact of the Constitution.
{3386}
They complain, therefore, that, instead of slavery being
regarded as an evil, as it was then, an evil which all hoped
would be extinguished gradually, it is now regarded by the
South as an institution to be cherished, and preserved, and
extended; an institution which the South has already extended
to the utmost of her power by the acquisition of new
territory. Well, then, passing from that, every body in the
North reads; and every body reads whatsoever the newspapers
contain; and the newspapers, some of them, especially those
presses to which I have alluded, are careful to spread about
among the people every reproachful sentiment uttered by any
Southern man bearing at all against the North; every thing
that is calculated to exasperate and to alienate; and there
are many such things, as every body will admit, from the
South, or some portion of it, which are disseminated among the
reading people; and they do exasperate, and alienate, and
produce a most mischievous effect upon the public mind at the
North. Sir, I would not notice things of this sort appearing
in obscure quarters; but one thing has occurred in this debate
which struck me very forcibly. An honorable member from
Louisiana addressed us the other day on this subject. I
suppose there is not a more amiable and worthy gentleman in
this chamber, nor a gentleman who would be more slow to give
offence to any body, and he did not mean in his remarks to
give offence. But what did he say? Why, Sir, he took pains to
run a contrast between the slaves of the South and the
laboring people of the North, giving the preference, in all
points of condition, and comfort, and happiness, to the slaves
of the South. The honorable member, doubtless, did not suppose
that he gave any offence, or did any injustice. He was merely
expressing his opinion. But does he know how remarks of that
sort will be received by the laboring people of the North?
Why, who are the laboring people of the North? They are the
whole North. They are the people who till their own farms with
their own hands; freeholders, educated men, independent men.
Let me say, Sir, that five sixths of the whole property of the
North is in the hands of the laborers of the North; they
cultivate their farms, they educate their children, they
provide the means of independence. … There is a more tangible
and irritating cause of grievance at the North. Free blacks
are constantly employed in the vessels of the North, generally
as cooks or stewards. When the vessel arrives at a Southern
port, these free colored men are taken on shore, by the police
or municipal authority, imprisoned, and kept in prison till
the vessel is again ready to sail. This is not only
irritating, but exceedingly unjustifiable and oppressive. Mr.
Hoar's mission, some time ago, to South Carolina, was a
well-intended effort to remove this cause of complaint. The
North thinks such imprisonments illegal and unconstitutional;
and as the cases occur constantly and frequently, they regard
it as a great grievance. Now, Sir, so far as any of these
grievances have their foundation in matters of law, they can
be redressed, and ought to be redressed; and so far as they
have their foundation in matters of opinion, in sentiment, in
mutual crimination and recrimination, all that we can do is to
endeavor to allay the agitation, and cultivate a better
feeling and more fraternal sentiments between the South and
the North. Mr. President, I should much prefer to have heard
from every member on this floor declarations of opinion that
this Union could never be dissolved, than the declaration of
opinion by any body, that, in any case, under the pressure of
any circumstances, such a dissolution was possible. I hear
with distress and anguish the word 'secession,' especially
when it falls from the lips of those who are patriotic, and
known to the country, and known all over the world, for their
political services. Secession! Peaceable secession! Sir, your
eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle. The
dismemberment of this vast country without convulsion! The
breaking up of the fountains of the great deep without
ruffling the surface! Who is so foolish, I beg every body's
pardon, as to expect to see any such thing? Sir, he who sees
these States, now revolving in harmony around a common centre,
and expects to see them quit their places and fly off without
convulsion, may look the next hour to see the heavenly bodies
rush from their spheres, and jostle against each other in the
realms of space, without causing the wreck of the universe.
There can be no such thing as a peaceable secession. Peaceable
secession is an utter impossibility. Is the great Constitution
under which we live, covering this whole country, is it to be
thawed and melted away by secession, as the snows on the
mountain melt under the influence of a vernal sun, disappear
almost unobserved, and run off? No, Sir! No, Sir! I will not
state what might produce the disruption of the Union; but,
Sir, I see as plainly as I see the sun in heaven what that
disruption itself must produce; I see that it must produce
war, and such a war as I will not describe, in its two-fold
character. Peaceable secession! Peaceable secession! The
concurrent agreement of all the members of this great republic
to separate! A voluntary separation, with alimony on one side
and on the other. Why, what would be the result? Where is the
line to be drawn? What States are to secede? What is to remain
American? What am I to be? An American no longer? Am I to
become a sectional man, a local man, a separatist, with no
country in common with the gentlemen who sit around me here,
or who fill the other house of Congress? Heaven forbid! Where
is the flag of the republic to remain? Where is the eagle
still to tower? or is he to cower, and shrink, and fall to the
ground? Why, Sir, our ancestors, our fathers, and our
grandfathers, those of them that are yet living amongst us
with prolonged lives, would rebuke and reproach us; and our
children and our grandchildren would cry out shame upon us, if
we of this generation should dishonor these ensign of the
power of the government and the harmony of that Union which is
every day felt among us with so much joy and gratitude. … Sir,
nobody can look over the face of this country at the present
moment, nobody can see where its population is the most dense
and growing, without being ready to admit, and compelled to
admit, that ere long the strength of America will be in the
Valley of the Mississippi.
{3387}
Well, now, Sir, I beg to inquire what the wildest enthusiast
has to say on the possibility of cutting that river in two,
and leaving free States at its source and on it branches, and
slave States down near its mouth, each forming a separate
government? … To break up this great government! to dismember
this glorious country! To astonish Europe with an act of folly
such as Europe for two centuries has never beheld in any
government or any people! No, Sir! no, Sir! There will be no
secession! Gentlemen are not serious when they talk of
secession."
Daniel Webster,
Works,
volume 5, page 324.
"The speech, if exactly defined, is, in reality, a powerful
effort, not for compromise or for the Fugitive Slave Law, or
any other one thing, but to arrest the whole anti-slavery
movement, and in that way put an end to the dangers which
threatened the Union and restore lasting harmony between the
jarring sections. It was a mad project. Mr. Webster might as
well have attempted to stay the incoming tide at Marshfield
with a rampart of sand as to seek to check the anti-slavery
movement by a speech. Nevertheless, he produced a great
effect. … The blow fell with terrible force, and here … we
come to the real mischief which was wrought. The 7th of March
speech demoralized New England and the whole North. The
abolitionists showed by bitter anger the pain, disappointment,
and dismay which this speech brought. The Free-Soil party
quivered and sank for the moment beneath the shock. The whole
anti-slavery movement recoiled. The conservative reaction
which Mr. Webster endeavored to produce came and triumphed.
Chiefly by his exertions the compromise policy was accepted
and sustained by the country. The conservative elements
everywhere rallied to his support, and by his ability and
eloquence it seemed as if he had prevailed and brought the
people over to his opinions. It was a wonderful tribute to his
power and influence, but the triumph was hollow and
short-lived. He had attempted to compass an impossibility.
Nothing could kill the principles of human liberty, not even a
speech by Daniel Webster, backed by all his intellect and
knowledge, his eloquence and his renown. The anti-slavery
movement was checked for the time, and pro-slavery democracy,
the only other positive political force, reigned supreme. But
amid the falling ruins of the Whig party, and the evanescent
success of the Native Americans, the party of human rights
revived; and when it rose again, taught by the trials and
misfortunes of 1850, it rose with a strength which Mr. Webster
had never dreamed of."
H. C. Lodge,
Daniel Webster,
chapter 9.
"A public meeting in Faneuil Hall condemned the action of
Webster. Theodore Parker, who was one of the principal
speakers, said: 'I know no deed in American history done by a
son of New England to which I can compare this but the act of
Benedict Arnold. … The only reasonable way in which we can
estimate this speech is as a bid for the presidency.' In the
main, the Northern Whig press condemned the salient points of
the speech. … Whittier, in a song of plaintive vehemence
called 'Ichabod,' mourned for the 'fallen' statesman whose
faith was lost, and whose honor was dead. … This was the
instant outburst of opinion; but friends for Webster and his
cause came with more deliberate reflections. … When the first
excitement had subsided, the friends of Webster bestirred
themselves, and soon testimonials poured in, approving the
position which he had taken. The most significant of them was
the one from eight hundred solid men of Boston, who thanked
him for 'recalling us to our duties under the Constitution,'
and for his 'broad national and patriotic views.' The tone of
many of the Whig papers changed, some to positive support,
others to more qualified censure. The whole political
literature of the time is full of the discussion of this
speech and its relation to the compromise. It is frequently
said that a speech in Congress does not alter opinions; that
the minds of men are determined by set political bias or
sectional considerations. This was certainly not the case in
1850. Webster's influence was of the greatest weight in the
passage of the compromise measures, and he is as closely
associated with them as is their author. Clay's adroit
parliamentary management was necessary to carry them through
the various and tedious steps of legislation. But it was
Webster who raised up for them a powerful and much-needed
support from Northern public sentiment. At the South the
speech was cordially received; the larger portion of the press
commended it with undisguised admiration. … On the 11th of
March, Seward spoke. … When Seward came to the territorial
question, his words created a sensation, 'We hold,' he said,
'no arbitrary authority over anything, whether acquired
lawfully or seized by usurpation. The Constitution regulates
our stewardship; the Constitution devotes the domain (i. e.
the territories not formed into States) to union, to justice,
to defence, to welfare, and to liberty. But there is a higher
law than the Constitution, which regulates our authority over
the domain, and devotes it to the same noble purposes. The
territory is a part, no inconsiderable part, of the common
heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the Creator of the
Universe. We are his stewards, and must so discharge our trust
as to secure in the highest attainable degree their
happiness.' This remark about 'a higher law,' while far
inferior in rhetorical force to Webster's 'I would not take
pains uselessly to reaffirm an ordinance of Nature, nor to
re-enact the will of God,' was destined to have transcendent
moral influence. A speech which can be condensed into an
aphorism is sure to shape convictions. These, then, are the
two maxims of this debate; the application of them shows the
essential points of the controversy."
J. F. Rhodes,
History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850.
volume 1, chapter 2.
In the political controversies which accompanied and followed
the introduction of the Compromise measures, the Whigs who
supported the Compromise were called "Silver-Grays," or
"Snuff-Takers," and those who opposed it were called
"Woolly-Heads," or "Seward-Whigs."
{3388}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
Mr. Clay's last compromise.
The Omnibus Bill.
The Fugitive Slave Law as passed.
On the 17th of April, "a select committee of the Senate,
headed by Mr. Clay, reported a bill consisting of 39 sections,
embodying most of the resolutions which had been discussed.
From its all-comprehensive nature it was called the Omnibus
Bill. The points comprehended in the omnibus bill were as
follows:
1st. When new states formed out of Texas present themselves,
it shall be the duty of Congress to admit them;
2d. The immediate admission of California, with the boundaries
which she has proposed;
3d. The establishment of territorial governments for Utah and
New Mexico, without the Wilmot proviso;
4th. The combination of points 2 and 3 in one bill;
5th. The excission from Texas of all New Mexico, rendering
therefor a pecuniary equivalent;
6th. The enactment of a law for the effectual rendition of
fugitive slaves escaping into the free states;
7th. No interference with slavery in the District of Columbia,
but the slave trade therein should be abolished, under heavy
penalties.
This bill was discussed until the last of July, and then
passed by the Senate, but it had been so pruned by successive
amendments that it contained only a provision for the
organization of a territorial government for Utah. In this
condition it was sent to the House. There, as a whole, the
bill was rejected, but its main heads were passed in August as
separate bills, and were designated the compromise measures of
1850, and, in their accepted shape, required:
(1) Utah and New Mexico to be organized into territories,
without reference to slavery;
(2) California to be admitted as a free state;
(3) $10,000,000 to be paid to Texas for her claim to New
Mexico;
(4) fugitive slaves to be returned to their masters; and
(5) the slave trade to be abolished in the District of
Columbia.
The compromises were received by the leaders of the two great
parties as a final settlement of the vexed questions which had
so long troubled Congress and agitated the country, but the
storm was only temporarily allayed. In accordance with these
measures California became a state of the Union September 9,
1850. The most important feature of this bill, in its bearing
upon future struggles and conflicts, was the fugitive slave
law. … In the midst of the discussion of these topics occurred
the death of the President, July 9, 1850, one year and four
months after his inauguration. … Mr. Fillmore was inaugurated
on the 10th of July, 1850. He departed from the policy of his
predecessor, organized a new cabinet, used his influence in
favor of the compromise measures," and gave his signature to
the Fugitive Slave Law.
W. R. Houghton,
History of American Politics,
chapter 15.
"It was apparent to everyone who knew anything of the
sentiments of the North that this law could not be executed to
any extent. Seward had truly said that if the South wished
their runaway negroes returned they must alleviate, not
increase, the rigors of the law of 1793; and to give the
alleged fugitive a jury trial, as Webster proposed, was the
only possible way to effect the desired purpose. If we look
below the surface we shall find a strong impelling motive of
the Southern clamor for this harsh enactment other than the
natural desire to recover lost property. Early in the session
it took air that a part of the game of the disunionists was to
press a stringent fugitive slave law, for which no Northern
man could vote; and when it was defeated, the North would be
charged with refusing to carry out a stipulation of the
Constitution. Douglas stated in the Senate that while there
was some ground for complaint on the subject of surrender of
fugitives from service, it had been greatly exaggerated. The
excitement and virulence were not along the line bordering on
the free and slave States, but between Vermont and South
Carolina, New Hampshire and Alabama, Connecticut and
Louisiana. Clay gave vent to his astonishment that Arkansas,
Louisiana, Georgia, and South Carolina, States which very
rarely lost a slave, demanded a stricter law than Kentucky,
which lost many. After the act was passed Senator Butler, of
South Carolina, said: 'I would just as soon have the law of
1793 as the present law, for any purpose, so far as regards
the reclamation of fugitive slaves;' and another Southern
ultra never thought it would be productive of much good to his
section. Six months after the passage of the law, Seward
expresses the matured opinion 'that political ends—merely
political ends—and not real evils, resulting from the escape
of slaves, constituted the prevailing motives to the
enactment.'"
J. F. Rhodes,
History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850,
chapter 2 (volume 1).
"The fugitive-slave law was to make the citizens of the Free
States do for the slave-holders what not a few of the
slave-holders were too proud to do for themselves. Such a law
could not but fail. But then it would increase the
exasperation of the slave-holders by its failure, while
exasperating the people of the Free States by the attempts at
enforcement. Thus the compromise of 1850, instead of securing
peace and harmony, contained in the most important of its
provisions the seeds of new and greater conflicts. One effect
it produced which Calhoun had clearly predicted when he warned
the slave-holding states against compromises as an invention
of the enemy: it adjourned the decisive conflict until the
superiority of the North over the South in population and
material resources was overwhelming."
C. Schurz,
Life of Henry Clay,
chapter 26 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
H. von Holst,
Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
volume 3, chapters 15-16.
H. Clay,
Life, Correspondence, and Speeches; edited by Colton,
volume 6.
W. H. Seward,
Works,
volume 1, pages 51-131.
and volume 4.
J. S. Pike,
First Blows of the Civil War,
pages 1-98.
H.Wilson,
History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
volume 2, chapters 18-28.
J. F. Rhodes,
History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850,
chapter. 2 (volume 1).
See, also, HIGHER LAW DOCTRINE.
The following is the complete text of the Fugitive Slave Law:
"An act to amend, and supplementary to, the Act entitled 'An
Act respecting Fugitives from Justice, and Persons escaping
from the Service of their Masters,' approved February twelfth,
one thousand seven hundred and ninety-three.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
persons who have been, or may hereafter be, appointed
commissioners, in virtue of any act of Congress, by the
Circuit Courts of the United States, and who, in consequence
of such appointment, are authorized to exercise the powers
that any justice of the peace, or other magistrate of any of
the United States, may exercise in respect to offenders for
any crime or offence against the United States, by arresting,
imprisoning, or bailing the same under and by virtue of the
thirty-third section of the act of the twenty-fourth of
September seventeen hundred and eighty-nine, entitled 'An Act
to establish the judicial courts of the United States,' shall
be, and are hereby, authorized and required to exercise and
discharge all the powers and duties conferred by this act.
{3389}
SECTION 2. And be it further enacted, That the Superior Court
of each organized Territory of the United States shall have
the same power to appoint commissioners to take
acknowledgments of bail and affidavits, and to take
depositions of witnesses in civil causes, which is now
possessed by the Circuit Court of the United States; and all
commissioners who shall hereafter be appointed for such
purposes by the Superior Court of any organized Territory of
the United States, shall possess all the powers, and exercise
all the duties, conferred by law upon the commissioners
appointed by the Circuit Courts of the United States for
similar purposes, and shall moreover exercise and discharge
all the powers and duties conferred by this act.
SECTION 3. And be it further enacted, That the Circuit Courts
of the United States, and the Superior Courts of each
organized Territory of the United States, shall from time to
time enlarge the number of commissioners, with a view to
afford reasonable facilities to reclaim fugitives from labor,
and to the prompt discharge of the duties imposed by this act.
SECTION 4. And be it further enacted, That the commissioners
above named shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the judges
of the Circuit and District Courts of the United States, in
their respective circuits and districts within the several
States, and the judges of the Superior Courts of the
Territories, severally and collectively, in term-time and
vacation; and shall grant certificates to such claimants, upon
satisfactory proof being made, with authority to take and
remove such fugitives from service or labor, under the
restrictions herein contained, to the State or Territory from
which such persons may have escaped or fled.
SECTION 5. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the
duty of all marshals and deputy marshals to obey and execute
all warrants and precepts issued under the provisions of this
act, when to them directed; and should any marshal or deputy
marshal refuse to receive such warrant, or other process, when
tendered, or to use all proper means diligently to execute the
same, he shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in the sum of
one thousand dollars, to the use of such claimant, on the
motion of such claimant by the Circuit or District Court for
the district of such marshal; and after arrest of such
fugitive, by such marshal or his deputy, or whilst at any time
in his custody under the provisions of this act, should such
fugitive escape, whether with or without the assent of such
marshal or his deputy, such marshal shall be liable, on his
official bond, to be prosecuted for the benefit of such
claimant, for the full value of the service or labor of said
fugitive in the State, Territory, or District whence he
escaped: and the better to enable the said commissioners, when
thus appointed, to execute their duties faithfully and
efficiently, in conformity with the requirements of the
Constitution of the United States and of this act, they are
hereby authorized and empowered, within their counties
respectively, to appoint, in writing under their hands, any
one or more suitable persons, from time to time, to execute
all such warrants and other process as may be issued by them
in the lawful performance of their respective duties; with
authority to such commissioners, or the persons to be
appointed by them, to execute process as aforesaid, to summon
and call to their aid the bystanders, or posse comitatus of
the proper county, when necessary to insure a faithful
observance of the clause of the Constitution referred to, in
conformity with the provisions of this act; and all good
citizens are hereby commanded to aid and assist in the prompt
and efficient execution of this law, whenever their services
may be required, as aforesaid, for that purpose; and said
warrants shall run, and be executed by said officers, anywhere
in the State within which they are issued.
SECTION 6. And be it further enacted, That when a person held
to service or labor in any State or Territory of the United
States, has heretofore or shall hereafter escape into another
State or Territory of the United States, the person or persons
to whom such service or labor may be due, or his, her, or
their agent or attorney, duly authorized, by power of
attorney, in writing, acknowledged and certified under the
seal of some legal officer or court of the State or Territory
in which the same may be executed, may pursue and reclaim such
fugitive person, either by procuring a warrant from some one
of the courts, judges, or commissioners aforesaid, of the
proper circuit, district, or county, for the apprehension of
such fugitive from service or labor, or by seizing and
arresting such fugitive, where the same can be done without
process, and by taking, or causing such person to be taken,
forthwith before such court, judge, or commissioner, whose
duty it shall be to hear and determine the case of such
claimant in a summary manner; and upon satisfactory proof
being made, by deposition or affidavit, in writing, to be
taken and certified by such court, judge, or commissioner, or
by other satisfactory testimony, duly taken and certified by
some court, magistrate, justice of the peace, or other legal
officer authorized to administer an oath and take depositions
under the laws of the State or Territory from which such
person owing service or labor may have escaped, with a
certificate of such magistracy or other authority, as
aforesaid, with the seal of the proper court or officer
thereto attached, which seal shall be sufficient to establish
the competency of the proof, and with proof, also by
affidavit, of the identity of the person whose service or
labor is claimed to be due as aforesaid, that the person so
arrested does in fact owe service or labor to the person or
persons claiming him or her, in the State or Territory from
which such fugitive may have escaped as aforesaid, and that
said person escaped, to make out and deliver to such claimant,
his or her agent or attorney, a certificate setting forth the
substantial facts as to the service or labor due from such
fugitive to the claimant, and of his or her escape from the
State or Territory in which such service or labor was due, to
the State or Territory in which he or she was arrested, with
authority to such claimant, or his or her agent or attorney,
to use such reasonable force and restraint as may be
necessary, under the circumstances of the case, to take and
remove such fugitive person back to the State or Territory
whence he or she may have escaped as aforesaid. In no trial or
hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged
fugitive be admitted in evidence; and the certificates in this
and the first [fourth] section mentioned, shall be conclusive
of the right of the person or persons in whose favor granted,
to remove such fugitive to the State or Territory from which
he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation of such person
or persons by any process issued by any court, judge,
magistrate, or other person whomsoever.
{3390}
SECTION 7. And be it further enacted, That any person who
shall knowingly and willingly obstruct, hinder, or prevent
such claimant, his agent or attorney, or any person or persons
lawfully assisting him, her, or them, from arresting such a
fugitive from service or labor, either with or without process
as aforesaid, or shall rescue, or attempt to rescue, such
fugitive from service or labor, from the custody of such
claimant, his or her agent or attorney, or other person or
persons lawfully assisting as aforesaid, when so arrested,
pursuant to the authority herein given and declared; or shall
aid, abet, or assist such person so owing service or labor as
aforesaid, directly or indirectly, to escape from such
claimant, his agent or attorney, or other person or persons
legally authorized as aforesaid; or shall harbor or conceal
such fugitive, so as to prevent the discovery and arrest of
such person, after notice or knowledge of the fact that such
person was a fugitive from service or labor as aforesaid,
shall, for either of said offences, be subject to a fine not
exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding
six months, by indictment and conviction before the District
Court of the United States for the district in which such
offence may have been committed, or before the proper court of
criminal jurisdiction, if committed within any one of the
organized Territories of the United States; and shall moreover
forfeit and pay, by way of civil damages to the party injured
by such illegal conduct, the sum of one thousand dollars, for
each fugitive so lost as aforesaid, to be recovered by action
of debt, in any of the District or Territorial Courts
aforesaid, within whose jurisdiction the said offence may have
been committed.
SECTION 8. And be it further enacted, That the marshals, their
deputies, and the clerks of the said District and Territorial
Courts, shall be paid, for their services, the like fees as
may be allowed to them for similar services in other cases;
and where such services are rendered exclusively in the
arrest, custody, and delivery of the fugitive to the claimant,
his or her agent or attorney, or where such supposed fugitive
may be discharged out of custody for the want of sufficient
proof as aforesaid, then such fees are to be paid in the whole
by such claimant, his agent or attorney; and in all cases
where the proceedings are before a commissioner, he shall be
entitled to a fee of ten dollars in full for his services in
each case, upon the delivery of the said certificate to the
claimant, his or her agent or attorney; or a fee of five
dollars in cases where the proof shall not, in the opinion of
such commissioner, warrant such certificate and delivery,
inclusive of all services incident to such arrest and
examination, to be paid, in either case, by the claimant, his
or her agent or attorney. The person or persons authorized to
execute the process to be issued by such commissioners for the
arrest and detention of fugitives from service or labor as
aforesaid, shall also be entitled to a fee of five dollars
each for each person he or they may arrest and take before any
such commissioner as aforesaid, at the instance and request of
such claimant, with such other fees as may be deemed
reasonable by such commissioner for such other additional
services as may be necessarily performed by him or them; such
as attending at the examination, keeping the fugitive in
custody, and providing him with food and lodging during his
detention, and until the final determination of such
commissioner; and, in general, for performing such other
duties as may be required by such claimant, his or her
attorney or agent, or commissioner in the premises, such fees
to be made up in conformity with the fees usually charged by
the officers of the courts of justice within the proper
district or county, as near as may be practicable, and paid by
such claimants, their agents or attorneys, whether such
supposed fugitives from service or labor be ordered to be
delivered to such claimants by the final determination of such
commissioners or not.
SECTION 9. And be it further enacted, That, upon affidavit
made by the claimant of such fugitive, his agent or attorney,
after such certificate has been issued, that he has reason to
apprehend that such fugitive will be rescued by force from his
or their possession before he can be taken beyond the limits
of the State in which the arrest is made, it shall be the duty
of the officer making the arrest to retain such fugitive in
his custody, and to remove him to the State whence he fled,
and there to deliver him to said claimant, his agent, or
attorney. And to this end, the officer aforesaid is hereby
authorized and required to employ so many persons as he may
deem necessary to overcome such force, and to retain them in
his service so long as circumstances may require. The said
officer and his assistants, while so employed, to receive the
same compensation, and to be allowed the same expenses, as are
now allowed by law for transportation of criminals, to be
certified by the judge of the district within which the arrest
is made, and paid out of the treasury of the United States.
SECTION 10. And be it further enacted, That when any person
held to service or labor in any State or Territory, or in the
District of Columbia, shall escape therefrom, the party to
whom such service or labor shall be due, his, her, or their
agent or attorney, may apply to any court of record therein,
or judge thereof in vacation, and make satisfactory proof to
such court, or judge in vacation, of the escape aforesaid, and
that the person escaping owed service or labor to such party.
Whereupon the court shall cause a record to be made of the
matters so proved, and also a general description of the
person so escaping, with such convenient certainty as may be;
and a transcript of such record, authenticated by the
attestation of the clerk and of the seal of the said court,
being produced in any other State, Territory, or district in
which the person so escaping may be found, and being exhibited
to any judge, commissioner, or other officer authorized by the
law of the United States to cause persons escaping from
service or labor to be delivered up, shall be held and taken
to be full and conclusive evidence of the fact of escape, and
that the service or labor of the person escaping is due to the
party in such record mentioned. And upon the production by the
said party of other and further evidence if necessary, either
oral or by affidavit, in addition to what is contained in the
said record of the identity of the person escaping, he or she
shall be delivered up to the claimant.
{3391}
And the said court, commissioner, judge, or other person
authorized by this act to grant certificates to claimants of
fugitives, shall, upon the production of the record and other
evidences aforesaid, grant to such claimant a certificate of
his right to take any such person identified and proved to be
owing service or labor as aforesaid, which certificate shall
authorize such claimant to seize or arrest and transport such
person to the State or Territory from which he escaped:
Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as
requiring the production of a transcript of such record as
evidence as aforesaid. But in its absence the claim shall be

heard and determined upon other satisfactory proofs, competent
in law. Approved, September 18, 1850."
Statutes at Large,
ix. 462-465.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty with Great Britain.
See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-1851.
The Hülsemann Letter.
Kossuth in America.
In July, 1850, Daniel Webster became Secretary of State in the
cabinet of President Fillmore and retained that post until his
death, in October, 1852. "The best-known incident of this
period was that which gave rise to the famous 'Hülsemann
letter.' President Taylor had sent an agent to Hungary to
report upon the condition of the revolutionary government,
with the intention of recognizing it if there were sufficient
grounds for doing so. When the agent arrived, the revolution
was crushed, and he reported to the President against
recognition. These papers were transmitted to the Senate in
March, 1850. Mr. Hülsemann, the Austrian Charge, thereupon
complained of the action of our administration, and Mr.
Clayton, then Secretary of State, replied that the mission of
the agent had been simply to gather information. On receiving
further instructions from his government, Mr. Hülsemann
rejoined to Mr. Clayton, and it fell to Mr. Webster to reply,
which he did on December 21, 1850. The note of the Austrian
Chargé was in a hectoring and highly offensive tone, and Mr.
Webster felt the necessity of administering a sharp rebuke.
'The Hülsemann letter,' as it was called, was, accordingly
dispatched. It set forth strongly the right of the United
States and their intention to recognize any de facto
revolutionary government, and to seek information in all
proper ways in order to guide their action. … Mr. Webster had
two objects. One was to awaken the people of Europe to a sense
of the greatness of this country, the other to touch the
national pride at home. He did both. … The affair did not,
however, end here. Mr. Hülsemann became very mild, but he soon
lost his temper again. Kossuth and the refugees in Turkey were
brought to this country in a United States frigate. The
Hungarian hero was received with a burst of enthusiasm that
induced him to hope for substantial aid, which was, of course,
wholly visionary. The popular excitement made it difficult for
Mr. Webster to steer a proper course, but he succeeded, by
great tact, in showing his own sympathy, and, so far as
possible, that of the government, for the cause of Hungarian
independence and for its leader, without going too far. … Mr.
Webster's course, … although carefully guarded, aroused the
ire of Mr. Hülsemann, who left the country, after writing a
letter of indignant farewell to the Secretary of State."
H. C. Lodge,
Daniel Webster,
chapter 10.
ALSO IN:
D. Webster,
Works,
volume 6, pages 488-504.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1851.
The Lopez Filibustering expedition to Cuba.
See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.
Appearance of the Know Nothing or American Party.
"A new party had by this time risen to active importance in
American politics. It appeared in 1852, in the form of a
secret, oath-bound organization, of whose name, nature, and
objects nothing was told even to its members until they had
reached its higher degrees. Their consequent declaration that
they knew nothing about it gave the society its popular name
of Know Nothings. It accepted the name of the American Party.
Its design was to oppose the easy naturalization of
foreigners, and to aid the election of native-born citizens to
office. Its nominations were made by secret conventions of
delegates from the various lodges, and were voted for by all
members under penalty of expulsion in case of refusal. At
first, by endorsing the nominations of one or other of the two
great parties, it decided many elections. After the passage of
the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, the Know Nothing organization was
adopted by many Southern Whigs who were unwilling to unite
with the Democracy, and became, for a time, a national party.
It carried nine of the State elections in 1855, and in 1856
nominated Presidential candidates. After that time its
Southern members gradually united with the Democracy, and the
Know Nothing party disappeared from politics."
A. Johnston,
History of American Politics, 2d edition,
chapter 18, section 4.
The ritual, rules, etc., of the American, or Know Nothing
party are given in the following work.
T. V. Cooper,
American Politics,
pages 56-68.
ALSO IN:
A. Holmes,
Parties and their Principles,
pages 287-295.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.
Seventeenth Presidential Election.
Franklin Pierce.
"The question of slavery, in its comprehensive bearings,
formed the turning point in the presidential canvass of 1852.
… The national democratic convention which nominated Mr.
Pierce, unanimously adopted a platform approving the
compromise of 1850 as the final decision of the slavery
question. The Whig party were widely divided on the question
of acquiescence in the compromise measures, and still more at
variance in regard to the claims of rival candidates for the
presidency. Mr. Seward's friends in the free states united in
the support of General Scott, who had, to a considerable
extent, stood aloof from the agitations of the last few years.
On the other hand, the exclusive supporters of the compromise,
as a condition of party allegiance, were divided between
Millard Fillmore, at that time acting president, and Daniel
Webster, secretary of state. The Whig convention met in
Baltimore on the 17th of June, 1852, two weeks after the
democratic convention, and nominated General Scott as their
candidate for president. A large majority of the delegates
from New York, and a considerable number from other states,
maintained their opposition to the test resolutions which were
proposed by the other branch of the party. These resolutions,
however, were adopted, and a platform was thus established
resembling, in its main features, that of the democrats. …
Supported by several advocates of this new platform on the
ground of his personal popularity, General Scott received the
nomination.
{3392}
He was, however, regarded with great suspicion by a large
number of whigs in the slaveholding states. … Many ardent
friends of the compromise … refused to rally around General
Scott, distrusting his fidelity to the compromise platform;
while a large number of the Whigs of the free states, through
aversion to the platform, assumed a neutral position or gave
their support to a third candidate. Another portion of the
Whig party nominated Mr. Webster, who died [October 24, 1852],
not only refusing to decline the nomination, but openly
avowing his disgust with the action of the party."
G. E. Baker,
Memoir of William. H. Seward
(Seward's Works, volume 4).
"The Democratic convention was held, first, on June 1, 1852,
at Baltimore. It was a protracted convention, for it did not
adjourn until the 6th of the month, but it was not very
interesting. … After a short contest, the two-thirds rule was
adopted by an overwhelming majority. The struggle over the
nomination was protracted. On the first ballot, General Cass
had 116; James Buchanan, 93; William L. Marcy, 27; Stephen A.
Douglas, 20; Joseph Lane, 13; Samuel Houston, 8; and there
were 4 scattering. The number necessary to a choice was 188. …
On the twenty-ninth trial, the votes were: for Cass, 27; for
Buchanan, 93; for Douglas, 91; and no other candidate had more
than 26. At this point Cass began to recover his strength, and
reached his largest number on the thirty-fifth trial, namely,
131. On that same ballot, Virginia gave 15 votes to Franklin
Pierce. Mr. Pierce gained 15 more votes on the thirty-sixth
trial; but at that point his increase ceased, and was then
slowly resumed, as the weary repetition of balloting without
effect went on. The forty-eighth trial resulted as follows:
for Cass, 73; for Buchanan, 28; for Douglas, 33; for Marcy,
90; for Pierce, 55; for all others, 8. The forty-ninth trial
was the last. There was a 'stampede' for Pierce, and he
received 282 votes to 6 for all others. Ten candidates were
voted for as a candidate for the vice-presidency.—On the
second ballot, William R. King of Alabama was unanimously
nominated. … The anti-slavery organization, the Free Soil
Democrats, though a much less important political factor than
they had been four years earlier, held their convention in
Pittsburg on August 11. Henry Wilson of Massachusetts
presided. John P. Hale of New Hampshire was nominated for
President, and George W. Julian of Indiana for Vice-President.
… The canvass was not a very spirited one. All the early
autumn elections were favorable to the Democrats, and the
result in November was a crushing defeat of the Whigs in the
popular vote and one still more decisive in the electoral
vote. … The popular and electoral votes were as follows."
Popular vote: Franklin Pierce, 1,601,274; Winfield Scott,
1,386,580; John P. Hale, 155,825. Electoral vote: Pierce, 254;
Scott, 42.
E. Stanwood,
History of Presidential Elections,
chapter 18.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.
The appearance of Uncle Tom's Cabin, and its effect.
"Of the literary forces that aided in bringing about the
immense revolution in public sentiment between 1852 and 1860,
we may affirm with confidence that by far the most weighty was
the influence spread by this book. This story, when published
[1851-1852] as a serial in the 'National Era,' an anti-slavery
newspaper at Washington, attracted little attention, but after
it was given to the world in book form in March, 1852, it
proved the most successful novel ever written. The author felt
deeply that the Fugitive Slave law was unjust, and that there
was cruelty in its execution; this inspired her to pour out
her soul in a protest against slavery. She thought that if she
could only make the world see slavery as she saw it, her
object would be accomplished; she would then have induced
people to think right on the subject. The book was composed
under the most disheartening circumstances. Worn out with the
care of many young children; overstrained by the domestic
trials of a large household, worried because her husband's
small income did not meet their frugal needs; eking out the
poor professor's salary by her literary work in a house too
small to afford a study for the author—under such conditions
there came the inspiration of her life. … The effect produced
by the book was immense. Whittier offered up 'thanks for the
Fugitive Slave law; for it gave occasion for Uncle Tom's
Cabin.' Longfellow thought it was one of the greatest triumphs
in literary history, but its moral effect was a higher triumph
still. Lowell described the impression which the book made as
a 'whirl of excitement.' Choate is reported to have said:
'That book will make two millions of abolitionists.' Garrison
wrote the author: 'All the defenders of slavery have let me
alone and are abusing you.'"
J. F. Rhodes,
History of the United States from 1850,
volume 1, pages 278-280.
Writing only nine months after the publication of "Uncle Tom's
Cabin," C. F. Briggs, in Putnam's Monthly Magazine, said:
"Never since books were first printed has the success of Uncle
Tom been equalled; the history of literature contains nothing
parallel to it, nor approaching it; it is, in fact, the first
real success in bookmaking, for all other successes in
literature were failures when compared with the success of
Uncle Tom. … There have been a good many books which were
considered popular on their first appearance, which were
widely read and more widely talked about. But what were they
all, compared with Uncle Tom, whose honest countenance now
overshadows the reading world, like the dark cloud with a
silver lining. Don Quixote was a popular book on its first
coming out, and so was Gil Blas, and Richardson's Pamela, and
Fielding's Tom Jones, and Hannah More's Cœlebs, and Gibbon's
Decline and Fall; and so were the Vicar of Wakefield, and
Rasselas, and the Tale of a Tub, and Evelina, the Lady of the
Lake, Waverley, the Sorrows of Werter, Childe Harold, the Spy,
Pelham, Vivian Grey, Pickwick, the Mysteries of Paris, and
Macaulay's History. These are among the most famous books that
rose suddenly in popular esteem on their first appearance, but
the united sale of the whole of them, within the first nine
months of their publication, would not equal the sale of Uncle
Tom in the same time. … It is but nine months since this Iliad
of the blacks, as an English reviewer calls Uncle Tom, made
its appearance among books, and already its sale has exceeded
a million of copies; author and publisher have made fortunes
out of it, and Mrs. Stowe, who was before unknown, is as
familiar a name in all parts of the civilized world as that of
Homer or Shakspeare. Nearly 200,000 copies of the first edition
of the work have been sold in the United States, and the
publishers say they are unable to meet the growing demand.
{3393}
The book was published on the 20th of last March, and on the
1st of December there had been sold 120,000 sets of the
edition in two volumes. 50,000 copies of the cheaper edition
in one, and 3,000 copies of the costly illustrated edition. …
They [the publishers] have paid to the author $20,300 as her
share of the profits on the actual cash sales of the first
nine months. But it is in England where Uncle Tom has made his
deepest mark. Such has been the sensation produced by the book
there, and so numerous have been the editions published, that
it is extremely difficult to collect the statistics of its
circulation with a tolerable degree of exactness. But we know
of twenty rival editions in England and Scotland, and that
millions of copies have been produced. … We have seen it
stated that there were thirty different editions published in
London, within six months of the publication of the work here,
and one firm keeps 400 men employed in printing and binding
it. … Uncle Tom was not long in making his way across the
British Channel, and four rival editions are claiming the
attention of the Parisians, one under the title of 'le Père
Tom,' and another of 'la Case de l'Oncle Tom.'"
Uncle Tomitudes
(Putnam's Monthly Magazine, January, 1853).
"In May, 1852. Whittier wrote to Garrison: 'What a glorious
work Harriet Beecher Stowe has wrought. Thanks for the
Fugitive Slave Law. Better for slavery that that law had never
been enacted, for it gave occasion for Uncle Tom's Cabin.' …
Macaulay wrote, thanking her for the volume, assuring her of
his high respect for the talents and for the benevolence of
the writer. Four years later, the same illustrious author,
essayist, and historian wrote to Mrs. Stowe: 'I have just
returned from Italy, where your fame seems to throw that of
all other writers into the shade. There is no place where
Uncle Tom, transformed into Il Zio Tom, is not to be found.'
From Lord Carlisle she received a long and earnest epistle, in
which he says he felt that slavery was by far the 'topping'
question of the world and age, and that he returned his 'deep
and solemn thanks to Almighty God, who has led and enabled you
to write such a book.' The Rev. Charles Kingsley, in the midst
of illness and anxiety, sent his thanks, saying: 'Your book
will do more to take away the reproach from your great and
growing nation than many platform agitations and
speechifyings.' Said Lord Palmerston, 'I have not read a novel
for thirty years; but I have read that book three times, not
only for the story, but for the statesmanship of it.' Lord
Cockburn declared: 'She has done more for humanity than was
ever before accomplished by any single book of fiction.'
Within a year Uncle Tom's Cabin was scattered all over the
world. Translations were made into all the principal
languages, and into several obscure dialects, in number
variously estimated from twenty to forty. The librarian of the
British Museum, with an interest and enterprise which might
well put our own countrymen to blush, has made a collection
which is unique and very remarkable in the history of books.
American visitors may see there thirty-five editions (Uncle
Tom's Cabin) of the original English, and the complete text,
and eight of abridgments and adaptations. Of translations into
different languages there are nineteen, viz.: Armenian, one;
Bohemian, one; Danish, two distinct versions; Dutch, one;
Flemish, one; French, eight distinct versions, and two dramas;
German, five distinct versions, and four abridgments;
Hungarian, one complete version, one for children, and one
versified abridgment; Illyrian, two distinct versions;
Italian, one; Polish, two distinct versions; Portuguese, one;
Roman, or modern Greek, one; Russian, two distinct versions;
Spanish, six distinct versions; Swedish, one; Wallachian, two
distinct versions; Welsh, three distinct versions."
Mrs. F. T. McCray,
Uncle Tom's Cabin
(Magazine of American History, January, 1890).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852-1854.
The Perry Expedition.
Opening of intercourse with Japan.
See JAPAN: A. D. 1852-1888.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1853.
The Gadsden Purchase of Arizona.
See ARIZONA: A. D. 1853.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.
The Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.
The doctrine of "Squatter Sovereignty."
"The slavery agitation apparently had died away both in
congress and throughout the country. This calm, however, was
doomed to a sudden interruption. The prospect of … beneficent
legislation was destroyed by the introduction of a measure
which at once supplanted all other subjects in congress and in
the political interests of the people. This was the novel and
astounding proposal of Mr. Douglas [Senator Stephen A.
Douglas, of Illinois], in relation to the Kansas and Nebraska
territories. … The measure … alluded to … was a provision in
the bill for the organization of a territory in Nebraska,
declaring that the states which might at any future time be
formed in the new territory should leave the question of
slavery to be decided by the inhabitants thereof on the
adoption of their constitution,—[this being in accordance with
the doctrine which its advocates styled 'Popular Sovereignty,'
but which took the commoner name of 'Squatter Sovereignty'
from its opponents]. This provision was, as explained by the
bill itself, the application of the compromise policy of 1850
to Nebraska, and, as was evident, virtually repealed the
Missouri Compromise of 1820, which guarantied that slavery
should be forever excluded from the territory in question.
But, in order to bring the supporters of the bill and its
opponents to a more decided test, an amendment was moved
expressly annulling that portion of the Missouri Compromise
which related to the subject. Mr. Douglas, after some
deliberation, accepted the amendment, and modified his plan so
far as to introduce a new bill for the organization of
Nebraska and Kansas within the same limits, instead of the
territory of Nebraska alone, according to the original
programme. The administration lost no time in adopting this
policy as their own. It was at first proposed to hasten the
passage of the bill through both houses so rapidly as to
prevent any remonstrance on the part of the people. But the
opponents of the measure, including Mr. Seward, Mr. Chase, Mr.
Sumner, Mr. Truman Smith, Mr. Wade, Mr. Everett, Mr. Bell, Mr.
Houston, and Mr. Fessenden, combined against it such an
earnest and effective resistance that the attention of the
country was aroused, and an indignant protest called forth
from the people of the free states. The bill, however, passed
the senate on the 4th day of March, 1854, after a discussion
which had occupied nearly every day of the session since the
23d of January. …
{3394}
On the 21st of March, Mr. Richardson of Illinois, in the
house, moved to refer the bill, as it came from the senate, to
the committee on territories, of which he was the chairman.
Mr. Francis B. Cutting, of New York, moved that it be sent to
the committee of the whole, where it could be freely
discussed. His motion was carried, after a severe struggle, by
a vote of 110 to 95. This was regarded as a triumph of the
enemies of the bill and inspired hopes of its ultimate defeat
in the house. On the 22d of May, after a most exciting
contest, lasting nearly two months, in committee of the whole,
Mr. Alex. H. Stephens of Georgia, by an extraordinary
stratagem in parliamentary tactics, succeeded in closing the
debate and bringing the bill to a vote in the house, where it
finally passed, before adjournment, by a vote of 113 to 100."
Returned to the senate, on account of amendments which had
been made to it, it passed that body again "by vote of 35 to
13; and amid the firing of cannon and the shouting of its
friends, it was sent to the president for his signature, at
three o'clock in the morning of May 26, 1854. President Pierce
promptly gave it his approval, and the odious measure became
the law of the land. Thus was abrogated the Missouri
Compromise—a law enacted thirty years before with all the
solemnity of a compact between the free and the slave
states—and a territory as large as the thirteen original
states opened to slavery. The act was consummated by the
cooperation of the north. Originating with a senator from a
free state, it was passed by a congress containing in each
branch a majority of members from the free states, and was
sanctioned by the approval of a free state president. The
friends of this legislation attempted to defend it on the
pretence that it was not an original act, but only declaratory
of the true intent and significance of the compromise measures
of 1850."
G. E. Baker,
Memoir of William H. Seward
(volume 4 of Seward's Works),
pages 24-27.
Senator Douglas' explanation of the reasons on which he
grounded his Kansas-Nebraska Bill is given in a report made by
Lieutenant-Colonel Cutts, of conversations held by him with
the Senator in 1859, and taken down in writing at the time, in
the exact language of Mr. Douglas. "There was," said Senator
Douglas, "a necessity for the organization of the Territory,
which could no longer be denied or resisted. … Mr. Douglas, as
early as the session of 1843, had introduced a bill to
organize the Territory of Nebraska, for the purpose of opening
the line of communication between the Mississippi Valley and
our possessions on the Pacific Ocean, known as the Oregon
country, and which was then under the operation of the treaty
of joint occupation, or rather non occupation, with England,
and was rapidly passing into the exclusive possession of the
British Hudson's Bay Fur Company, who were establishing posts
at every prominent and commanding point in the country. … Mr.
Douglas renewed the introduction of his bill for the
organization of Nebraska Territory, each session of Congress,
from 1844 to 1854, a period of ten years, and while he had
failed to secure the passage of the act, in consequence of the
Mexican war intervening, and the slavery agitation which
ensued, no one had objected to it upon the ground that there
was no necessity for the organization of the Territory. During
the discussions upon our Territorial questions during this
period, Mr. Douglas often called attention to the fact that a
line of policy had been adopted many years ago, and was being
executed each year, which was entirely incompatible with the
growth and development of our country. It had originated as
early as the administration of Mr. Monroe, and had been
continued by Mr. Adams, General Jackson, Mr. Van Buren,
Harrison, and by Tyler, by which treaties had been made with
the Indians to the east of the Mississippi River, for their
removal to the country bordering upon the States west of the
Mississippi or Missouri Rivers, with guaranties in said
treaties that the country within which these Indians were
located should never be embraced within any Territory or
State, or subjected to the jurisdiction of either, so long as
grass should grow and water should run. These Indian
settlements, thus secured by treaty, commenced upon the
northern borders of Texas, or Red River, and were continued
from year to year westward, until when, in 1844, Mr. Douglas
introduced his first Nebraska Bill, they had reached the
Nebraska or Platte River, and the Secretary of War was then
engaged in the very act of removing Indians from Iowa, and
settling them in the valley of the Platte River, with similar
guaranties of perpetuity, by which the road to Oregon was
forever to be closed. It was the avowed object of this Indian
policy to form an Indian barrier on the western borders of
Arkansas, Missouri, and Iowa, by Indian settlements, secured
in perpetuity by a compact that the white settlements should
never extend westward of that line. This policy originated in
the jealousy, on the part of the Atlantic States, of the
growth and expansion of the Mississippi Valley, which
threatened in a few years to become the controlling power of
the nation. … This restrictive system received its first cheek
in 1844, by the introduction of the Nebraska Bill, which was
served on the Secretary of War, by its author, on the day of
its introduction, with a notice that Congress was about to
organize the Territory, and therefore he must not locate any
more Indians there. In consequence of this notice, the
Secretary (by courtesy) suspended his operations until
Congress should have an opportunity of acting upon the bill;
and inasmuch as Congress failed to act that session, Mr.
Douglas renewed his bill and notice to the Secretary each
year, and thus prevented action for ten years, and until he
could procure action on the bill. … When Congress assembled at
the session of 1853-1854, in view of this state of facts, Mr.
Douglas renewed his Nebraska Act, which was modified, pending
discussion, by dividing into two Territories, and became the
Kansas-Nebraska Act. … The jealousies of the two great
sections of the Union, North and South, had been fiercely
excited by the slavery agitation. The Southern States would
never consent to the opening of those Territories to
settlement, so long as they were excluded by act of Congress
from moving there and holding their slaves; and they had the
power to prevent the opening of the country forever, inasmuch
as it had been forever excluded by treaties with the Indians,
which could not be changed or repealed except by a two-third
vote in the Senate.
{3395}
But the South were willing to consent to remove the Indian
restrictions, provided the North would at the same time remove
the Missouri restriction, and thus throw the country open to
settlement on equal terms by the people of the North and
South, and leave the settlers at liberty to introduce or
exclude slavery as they should think proper." The same report
gives a distinction which Senator Douglas drew between
"Popular Sovereignty" and "Squatter Sovereignty," as follows:
"The name of Squatter Sovereignty was first applied by Mr.
Calhoun, in a debate in the United States Senate in 1848,
between himself and General Cass, in respect to the right of
the people of California to institute a government for
themselves after the Mexican jurisdiction had been withdrawn
from them, and before the laws of the United States had been
extended over them. General Cass contended that in such a case
the people had a right, an inherent and inalienable right, to
institute a government for themselves and for their own
protection. Mr. Calhoun replied that, with the exception of
the native Californians, the inhabitants of that country were
mere squatters upon the public domain, who had gone there in
vast crowds, without the authority of law, and were in fact
trespassers as well as squatters upon the public lands, and to
recognize their right to set up a government for themselves
was to assert the doctrine of 'Squatter Sovereignty.' The term
had no application to an organized Territory under the
authority of Congress, or to the powers of such organized
Territory, but was applied solely to an unorganized country
whose existence was not recognized by law. On the other hand,
what is called 'Popular Sovereignty' in the Territories, is a
phrase used to designate the right of the people of an
organized Territory, under the Constitution and laws of the
United States, to govern themselves in respect to their own
internal polity and domestic affairs."
S. A. Douglas,
Brief Treatise upon Constitutional and Party Questions
(reported by J. M. Cutts),
pages 86-92, and 123-124.
"The repeal of the Missouri Compromise was the beginning of
the end, the fatal step of the South on its road to
destruction. Throughout the North the conviction grew that
Union and slavery could not exist much longer together. On the
4th of July, 1854, Garrison publicly burned a copy of the
Constitution of the United States with the words, 'The Union
must be dissolved!' He represented only an extreme sentiment.
But the people at large began to calculate the value of this
Union for which so many sacrifices had been made. Slavery
became odious to many persons hitherto indifferent to the
subject, on the ground that it persistently and selfishly
placed the Union in peril."
B. Tuckerman,
William Jay and the Constitutional Movement for
the Abolition of Slavery,
chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
M. Van Buren,
Inquiry into the Origin and Course of Political Parties,
chapter 8.
G. T. Curtis,
Life of James Buchanan,
chapter 9.
S. A. Douglas,
Popular Sovereignty in the Territories
(Harper's Magazine, September, 1859).
H. von Holst.
Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
volume 4, chapters 6-8.
H. Greeley,
History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension,
chapter 14.
J. F. Rhodes,
History of the United States from 1850,
chapter 5.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.
The Ostend Manifesto.
See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.
Solidification of Anti-slavery sentiment in the North.
The birth of the new Republican Party.
"The determined purpose of the Slave Power to make slavery the
predominating national interest was never more clearly
revealed than by the proposed repeal of the Missouri
compromise. This was a deliberate and direct assault upon
freedom. Many, indeed, under the pleas of fraternity and
loyalty to the Union, palliated and apologized for this breach
of faith; but the numbers were increasing every hour, as the
struggle progressed, who could no longer be deceived by these
hollow pretences. … Pulpits and presses which had been dumb,
or had spoken evasively and with slight fealty to truth, gave
forth no uncertain sound. … To the utterances of the sacred
desk were added the action of ecclesiastical bodies,
contributions to the press, and petitions to State
legislatures and to Congress. … These discussions from pulpit,
platform, and press, all pointed to political action as the
only adequate remedy. In the Northern States there were
Abolitionists, Free-Soilers, anti-slavery Whigs, anti-Nebraska
Democrats, and anti-slavery members of the American party,
which had just come into existence. … As the conflict
progressed, large and increasing numbers saw that no help
could be reasonably hoped but through the formation of a new
party that could act without the embarrassment of a Southern
wing. But the formation of a national and successful party
from materials afforded by the disintegration of hitherto
hostile organizations was a work of great delicacy and
difficulty. Such a party could not be made;—it must grow out
of the elements already existing. It must be born of the
nation's necessities and of its longings for relief from the
weakness, or wickedness, of existing organizations. The mode
of organizing this new party of freedom varied according to
the varying circumstances of different localities and the
convictions of different men. … One of the earliest, if not
the earliest, of the movements that contemplated definite
action and the formation of a new party, was made in Ripon,
Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin, in the early months of 1854." A
public meeting, held in one of the churches of the town, was
followed by a second meeting, on the 20th of March, at which
definite proceedings were taken. "By formal vote the town
committees of the Whig and Free Soil parties were dissolved,
and a committee of five, consisting of three Whigs, one
Free-Soiler, and one Democrat, was chosen. 'The work done on
that evening,' says Mr. Bovey [one of its originators], 'was
fully accepted by the Whig and Free Soil parties of all this
section immediately; and very soon—that is to say, in a few
months—by those parties throughout the entire State.' A State
convention was held in July, by which the organization of the
party was perfected for the State, a majority of the
delegation was secured for the next Congress, and a
Free-Soiler, Charles Durkee, was elected to the Senate of the
United States. At the meeting of the 20th of March, Mr. Bovey,
though stating his belief that the party should and probably
would take the name of 'Republican,' advised against such a
christening at that time and by that small local body of men.
He, however, wrote to the editor of the New York 'Tribune,'
suggesting the name. … But that 'little eddy' on that far-off
margin was only one of many similar demonstrations,—signs of a
turn of the tide in the great sea of American politics.
{3396}
In Washington, on the morning after the passage of the
Kansas-Nebraska bill, there was a meeting of some thirty
members of the House at the rooms of Thomas D. Eliot and
Edward Dickinson, of Massachusetts, called at the instance of
Israel Washburn, Jr., of Maine, for consultation in regard to
the course to be adopted in the exigencies of the case. The
hopelessness of any further attempts through existing
organizations was generally admitted; though a few still
counselled adherence to the Whig party, in the expectation of
securing its aid for freedom. But most present had become
convinced that in a new party alone lay any reasonable hope of
successful resistance to the continued aggressions of the
arrogant and triumphant Slave Power. The name 'Republican' was
suggested, discussed, and finally agreed upon as appropriate
for the new organization. … But, whatever suggestions others
may have made, or whatever action may have been taken
elsewhere, to Michigan belongs the honor of being the first
State to form and christen the Republican Party." A mass
convention of Whigs and Free Soilers in that State was held on
the 6th of July, at which the name was formally adopted, along
with a "platform" of principles opposing the extension of
slavery and demanding its abolition in the District of
Columbia. "Though the Republican Party was not immediately
organized in all the free States, its spirit inspired and its
ideas largely pervaded the North. Within one year eleven
Republican Senators were elected and fifteen States had
secured anti-Nebraska majorities. Out of 142 Northern members
of the House, 120 were opposed to the iniquitous measure. They
were in sufficient numbers not only to control the election of
Speaker, but they were able, by a majority of 15, to declare
that 'in the opinion of this House, the repeal of the Missouri
compromise of 1820, prohibiting slavery north of 36° 30', was
an example of useless and factious agitation of the slavery
question, unwise and unjust to the American people.' Several
States which had failed to organize a Republican Party in 1854
did so in 1855."
H. Wilson,
Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
volume 2, chapter 31.
"The refusal of the Whigs in many States to surrender their
name and organization, and more especially the abrupt
appearance of the Know-Nothings on the field of parties,
retarded the general coalition between the Whigs and the
Free-soilers which so many influences favored. As it turned
out, a great variety of party names were retained or adopted
in the Congressional and State campaigns of 1854, the
designation of 'anti-Nebraska' being perhaps the most common,
and certainly for the moment the most serviceable, since
denunciation of the Nebraska bill was the one all-pervading
bond of sympathy and agreement among men who differed very
widely on almost all other political topics. This affiliation,
however, was confined exclusively to the free States. In the
slave States, the opposition to the Administration dared not
raise the anti-Nebraska banner, nor could it have found
followers; and it was not only inclined but forced to make its
battle either under the old name of Whigs, or as became more
popular, under the new appellation of 'Americans,' which grew
into a more dignified synonym for Know-Nothings. … While the
measure was yet under discussion in the House in March, New
Hampshire led off by an election completely obliterating the
eighty-nine Democratic majority in her Legislature.
Connecticut followed in her footsteps early in April. Long
before November it was evident that the political revolution
among the people of the North was thorough, and that election
day was anxiously awaited merely to record the popular verdict
already decided. The influence of this result upon parties,
old and new, is perhaps best illustrated in the organization
of the Thirty-fourth Congress, chosen at these elections
during the year 1854, which witnessed the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise. Each Congress, in ordinary course, meets
for the first time about one year after its members are
elected by the people, and the influence of politics during
the interim needs always to be taken into account. In this
particular instance this effect had, if anything, been
slightly reactionary, and the great contest for the
Speakership during the winter of 1855-1856 may therefore be
taken as a fair manifestation of the spirit of politics in
1854. The strength of the preceding House of Representatives,
which met in December, 1853, had been: Whigs, 71;
Free-soilers, 4; Democrats, 159—a clear Democratic majority of
84. In the new Congress there were in the House, as nearly as
the classification could be made, about 108 anti-Nebraska
members, nearly 40 Know-Nothings, and about 75 Democrats; the
remaining members were undecided. The proud Democratic
majority of the Pierce election was annihilated."
J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
Abraham Lincoln,
volume 1, chapter 20.
ALSO IN:
J. D. Long, editor,
The Republican Party: its History, etc.
A. Holmes,
Parties and their Principles,
pages 274-278.
J. F. Rhodes,
History of the United States from 1850,
chapter 7 (volume 2).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1856.
The beginning of the struggle for Kansas.
Free-state settlers against Missouri "Border-ruffians."
See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1866.
The Canadian Reciprocity Treaty and its abrogation.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION, &c.
(UNITED STATES AND CANADA): A. D. 1854-1866.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1855-1856.
Long contest for the Speakership of the House.
Election of Mr. Banks, Republican.
Mr. Giddings' account.
"The free-soil party was now rapidly increasing in numbers and
influence. The Whig organization had disbanded: Yet its
leaders had too much pride of opinion to admit that the
anti-slavery men were right in their policy or in their
construction of the Constitution. Indeed, their prejudices
were too strong to permit them to join any other existing
organization. They therefore instituted a new party called the
'Know Nothings' or 'American party.' Their leading policy was
the exclusion of foreigners from office. … It was a secret
society, known to each other by signs, grips and passwords. It
increased rapidly in numbers, and in the autumn of 1844 they
elected a large majority of officers in all of the free
States. … The effect of their success became apparent at the
assembling of the thirty-fourth Congress. It had placed the
democratic party in a very decided minority in the House of
Representatives. … And the Free-soilers or Republicans were
placed in a most critical position. Their difficulty arose
from the determination of aspiring politicians to give all
influence into the hands of the organization which had
recently sprung up.
{3397}
Members of this new party were at the city of Washington some
weeks before the assembling of Congress, making such political
arrangements as they regarded necessary to secure the success
for the 'Know Nothings.' But all were conscious that neither
they nor the Free-soilers could succeed except by uniting with
each other." A partial combination of Know Nothings with the
Republicans was effected at a meeting on Friday before the
opening of the session of Congress. "Late in the day a
resolution was introduced pledging the members to vote for any
man on whom a majority of the members should unite, provided
he stood pledged by his past life or present declarations so
to arrange the committees of the House as to give respectful
answers to petitions concerning slavery. This resolution was
adopted by a unanimous vote of more than 70 members. But the
leading members of the 'Know Nothings' did not appear at any
of the caucuses. It was in this unorganized form that members
opposed to the extension of slavery met their associates on
Monday in the Hall of Representatives, to enter upon a contest
unequalled in the previous history of our Government. The
House consisted of 234 members—225 of whom answered to their
names at the first calling of the roll. The first business in
order was the election of Speaker: And the ballots being
counted, it was found that William A. Richardson, the
democratic candidate, had 74 votes; Lewis D. Campbell, of
Ohio, the 'Know Nothing' candidate, had 53 votes; Humphrey
Marshall, of Kentucky, the southern Know Nothing candidate, 30
votes; Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts, was supported by
those Free-soilers or Republicans who refused to support any
man placed in nomination by the Know Nothings; and Hiram M.
Fuller, of Pennsylvania, received the votes of 17 members of
the Know Nothing party who refused to support any other
candidate. There were several other ballots cast during the
day, with little change. The voting continued on the second,
third, fourth and fifth days, without material change, except
that Mr. Campbell's vote rose on one occasion as high as 75.
After the result of the twenty-third ballot was announced, Mr.
Campbell withdrew his name from the list of candidates. On the
withdrawal of Mr. Campbell, Mr. Banks' rose regularly until
the 15th December, when it reached 107. … On the 19th
December, the ballot showed Mr. Banks to have 106, and Mr.
Richardson 75. Messrs. Marshall and Fuller, with their
adherents, continuing to vote by themselves. During the
debates the Republicans were constantly assailed, and as the
writer [Joshua R. Giddings, of Ohio] was the oldest member of
that party, he felt constrained to vindicate their cause. He
assured the Democrats and 'Know Nothings' that the Republicans
must soon come into power: And when once in power they would
not permit southern members to dissolve the Union. This seemed
to arouse much angry feeling. Mr. McMullen, of Virginia,
replied with much spirit, declaring that whenever a northern
President should be elected the South would dissolve the
Union. This is believed to be the first distinct enunciation
in Congress that the Union was to be dissolved upon the
election of a northern President. Northern Democrats appeared
mortified at the imprudence of Mr. McMullen. Mr. Banks, in a
public speech made some two years previously in Maine, had
said, that if we were to extend slavery or dissolve the Union,
he would say, 'Let the Union slide.' This saying was now
seized upon by southern men as an insuperable objection to Mr.
Banks' election: While, at the same time, Mr. Brooks, of South
Carolina, assured the House and the country that unless
slavery were extended he desired to see the Union slide.
Members appeared by common consent to enter upon a general
debate, which was suspended on the 24th so long as to take a
ballot, which showed no substantial change in the parties. On
the 27th, four ballots were taken with a similar result. … On
the 28th December the balloting was resumed, and continued
through that and the following day without material change of
parties, and debate was again renewed. … The President of the
United States sent his annual message to the Senate on the
31st December, and his private secretary appeared at the
entrance of the House of Representatives and announced that he
had brought with him the annual message of the President, to
be presented to that body. Aware that this was intended to
exert an influence against the Republicans, the author at once
objected to receiving it, as it was an attempt to introduce a
new practice—for up to that time no President had ever
presumed to thrust his message upon an unorganized body—and
that it could not constitutionally be received by members
until a Speaker were elected. But a majority voted to receive
it. The next attempt was to read it to the House; but it was
again objected that it was not addressed to members in their
disorganized condition, but was addressed to the Senate and
House of Representatives, which had not then been organized.
This objection was sustained, and although they had received
the message, they refused to read it. The new year found the
House unorganized, with the President's message lying upon the
Clerk's desk unopened and unread. One ballot was taken. A
motion was next made to take up and read the President's
message; but, after debate, the motion was laid on the table.
Members now began to make arrangements for continuing the
contest indefinitely. Most of them had expected to draw their
mileage to defray their current expenses; but being unable to
do that until the House were organized, found themselves out
of funds. In many Republican districts the people met in
public conventions and passed resolutions approving the action
of their Representatives, made provisions for their members to
draw on their local banks for such funds as they deemed
necessary for defraying expenses at Washington. To meet these
expenses, some State Legislatures made appropriations from
their State funds. Soon as the republican party became
consolidated, its members became more confident. Those of
greatest experience assured their friends that as the
President, officers of government, and the army and navy must
go without pay until the House should be organized, the
pressure would soon be so great upon the democratic party that
they would be compelled to submit to the election of a
republican Speaker. Some State Legislatures passed resolutions
sustaining the action of their Representatives, declaring the
issue involved to be the extension or non-extension of
slavery. …
{3398}
On the 29th January several propositions were made for an
immediate organization. They were rejected, but by such small
majorities as to indicate an organization at no very distant
period; and the Republicans now felt one, and only one doubt
in regard to success. The southern 'Know Nothings' had been
Whigs, and bitterly hated the Democrats; and the question now
presented was, whether they would unite with their old enemies
rather than see a republican Speaker elected. On the 3d
February a resolution was presented, declaring that three more
ballots should be taken and if no election were had, the
candidate having the highest number of votes on the 4th ballot
should be declared Speaker. Soon after this vote was announced
the House adjourned. Members now felt that the contest was
drawing to a close. The next morning … Mr. Aiken, of South
Carolina, was announced as the democratic candidate. And the
first ballot, under the resolution, showed little change of
parties. Banks received 102 votes; Aiken, 92; Fuller, 13;
Campbell, 4; and Wells, 2. By this time the spacious galleries
were filled with eager spectators, the lobbies and passages
were crowded by men and ladies anxious for the result. The
next ballot was taken without any change of parties. A motion
was made to adjourn, but it was voted down by 159 to 52. Mr.
Fuller announced that he was no longer a candidate. The result
now appeared to be anticipated by all, and as the Clerk
commenced calling the roll of members for the final vote,
there appeared to be the most intense interest felt on all
sides of the House. … When the roll had been called through
there was so much confusion that it was difficult for anyone
to be heard. But the clerks and tellers proceeded in their
duties, and when the count was completed, Mr. Benson, of Maine
—one of the tellers—rose, and in a loud voice proclaimed that
'On the one hundred and thirty-third ballot Nathaniel P. Banks
had received 103 votes; Mr. Aiken had received 100 votes; Mr.
Fuller had received 6 votes; and Mr. Campbell had received 4
votes. That Mr. Banks having received the highest number of
votes on this ballot, was declared duly elected Speaker of the
thirty-fourth Congress.' At this announcement the spectators
in the galleries broke forth in wild excitement. Cheer after
cheer went up, amid the waving of handkerchiefs and
demonstrations of unrestrained exultation, which were
responded to by hisses from the Administration side of the
House. … The effect of this victory was felt through the
country. … Sixteen years before this occurrence Mr. Adams and
the author of these sketches were the only representatives in
Congress of the doctrines now supported by a majority of the
House. The slaveholders and those who sympathized with them
appeared to realize that political power was gradually
escaping from their grasp, and that the day was rapidly
approaching when the people would resume control of the
Government."
J. R. Giddings,
History of the Rebellion,
chapter 26.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1855-1860.
Walker's Filibustering in Nicaragua.
See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1855-1860.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856.
Refusal to sign the Declaration of Paris.
Proposed amendment.
See DECLARATION OF PARIS.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856.
Senator Sumner's speech on "The Crime against Kansas,"
and the assault upon him by Brooks of South Carolina.
"The most startling speech made during the debate [on affairs
in Kansas], and which, from the events succeeding, became the
most celebrated, was that of Charles Sumner. It was delivered
on the 19th and 20th days of May and was published under the
title of 'The Crime against Kansas.' … If there had been no
more to Sumner's speech than the invective against the slave
power, he would not have been assaulted by Preston Brooks. Nor
is it probable that the bitter attack which the senator made
on South Carolina would have provoked the violence, had it not
been coupled with personal allusions to Senator Butler, who
was a kinsman of Brooks. … It was said that Seward, who read
the speech before delivery, advised Sumner to tone down its
offensive remarks, and he and Wade regretted the personal
attack. But Sumner was not fully 'conscious of the stinging
force of his language.' To that, and because he was terribly
in earnest, must be attributed the imperfections of the
speech. He would annihilate the slave power, and he selected
South Carolina and her senator as vulnerable points of attack.
… Two days after this exciting debate (May 22d) when the
Senate at the close of a short session adjourned, Sumner
remained in the Chamber, occupied in writing letters. Becoming
deeply engaged, he drew his arm-chair close to his desk, bent
over his writing, and while in this position was approached by
Brooks, a representative from South Carolina and a kinsman of
Senator Butler. Brooks, standing before and directly over him,
said: 'I have read your speech twice over carefully. It is a
libel on South Carolina and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of
mine.' As he pronounced the last word, he hit Sumner on the
head with his cane with the force that a dragoon would give to
a sabre-blow. Sumner was more than six feet in height and of
powerful frame, but penned under the desk he could offer no
resistance, and Brooks continued the blows on his defenceless
head. The cane broke, but the South Carolinian went on beating
his victim with the butt. The first blows stunned and blinded
Sumner, but instinctively and with powerful effort he wrenched
the desk from its fastenings, stood up, and with spasmodic and
wildly directed efforts attempted unavailingly to protect
himself. Brooks took hold of him, and, while he was reeling
and staggering about, struck him again and again. The
assailant did not desist until his arm was seized by one who
rushed to the spot to stop the assault. At that moment Sumner,
reeling, staggering backwards and sideways, fell to the floor
bleeding profusely and covered with his blood. The injury
received by Sumner was much more severe than was at first
thought by his physicians and friends. Four days after the
assault, he was able to give at his lodgings his relation of
the affair to the committee of the House of Representatives.
But, in truth, the blows would have killed most men. Sumner's
iron constitution and perfect health warded off a fatal
result; but it soon appeared that the injury had affected the
spinal column. The next three years and a half was a search
for cure. … At last he went to Paris and put himself under the
care of Dr. Brown-Séquard, whose treatment of actual
cauterization of the back eventually restore him to a fair
degree of health; but he never regained his former physical
vigor.
{3399}
He was not able to enter regularly again on his senatorial
career until December, 1859. … The different manner in which
the North and the South regarded this deed is one of the many
evidences of the deep gulf between these two people caused by
slavery. … When Brooks returned to South Carolina he received
an enthusiastic welcome. He was honored as a glorious son of
the Palmetto State, and making him the present of a cane was a
favorite testimonial. … At the North the assault of Brooks was
considered brutal and cowardly; at the South, his name was