Page images
PDF
EPUB

1824.

ANTI-CAUCUS MOVEMENT.

61

tional and inexpedient. Unconstitutional because, though the caucus only recommended a candidate to the electors, and the recommendation was not obligatory, the members were going beyond their authority, and were attempting to effect an object—the election of two particular men-not confided to them by the Constitution. Inexpedient because it violated the equality between the States by enabling the large delegations from the populous States to outvote the few members from the small States and name persons not necessarily acceptable to them; and because it might, by acquiring the force of precedent, become established, and threaten the liberties of the American people. One resolution requested the Tennessee delegation in Congress to use its best efforts to prevent a caucus nomination. The other bade the Governor send a copy of the preamble and resolutions to the executives of the States and ask them to lay the documents before their respective Legislatures.

This was done, and with the opening of the new year State after State took action. Ohio would express no opinion. The committee to which the communication was referred in South Carolina could agree on no report, and were discharged. In North Carolina a motion to print was lost by the casting vote of the Speaker of the Senate. In Pennsylvania consideration was postponed indefinitely. In Rhode Island the resolutions were laid on the table. In Maine the Democratic Republicans in the Legislature met and approved the caucus method of nominating as the only means of securing harmony. In New York the committee in charge presented a long argumentative report and a resolution that, while it was not proper for the Legislature to urge the State delegation to oppose a caucus, the members of the Legislature were free to declare that it was not only constitutional, but at the present time was particularly desirable. In Virginia the supporters of Crawford, led on by John Tyler, made a stout fight for an indorsement of the caucus by the Legislature. There were, the Virginia committee said in its report, five candidates in the field, each zealously supported by a large body of adherents. As these adherents spared no pains to arouse in their chief's behalf both sectional feeling and local jealousy, the

country was threatened with internal schisms which could not fail to engender angry feelings in different parts of the Union. In the face of such a condition the committee could not see any ground for the hope that, in the absence of unity of action, a President could possibly be elected by the people. In times past the struggle for political supremacy had been carried on between two great parties. But no geographical line was drawn. No local feeling was aroused. Members of both parties were found in every State. Now all had changed, and the country was threatened with sectionalism, with an array of State against State, of the East against the West, of the North against the South. Should this happen, the election would surely go into the House of Representatives, than which nothing could be less desirable. Once there, it was in the power of a small minority to impose on the United States a man objectionable to the majority. In the House sat two hundred and thirteen members representing twenty-four States. As the election would be by States, thirteen would make a majority. Now there were thirteen States so small and sparsely settled that, all told, they sent but forty-five representatives to Congress. The population of ten of them when added together was less than that of New York alone. In one of them-Mississippi-there were at most 55,211 human beings. Yet her influence in the choice of a President, should that choice be made by the House, would be equal to that of New York with a population of 1,372,812, and a delegation of thirty-four representatives. Worse than all, it was in the power of a mere handful of men to control the election. A majority of each delegation would determine the vote of that delegation, and the combined majorities of the thirteen States in question added up to thirty-two. These thirty-two men might therefore, if they supported one man, overcome the votes of one hundred and eighty-one representatives concentrated on some other man. They might even prevent an election, for, as three names would come before the House, they could so arrange it that no candidate should receive a majority.

Deeply impressed by these dangers, there seemed to be no reason, the report went on to say, why Virginia, in con

1824.

ANTI-CAUCUS MOVEMENT.

63

cert with other States, should not strive to prevent the occurrence of conditions so much to be feared. It was then recommended that a resolution be adopted declaring that a caucus nomination was "both politic and expedient to preserve harmony and secure union," and pledging Virginia to support the candidate. But, in spite of the efforts of Tyler, the motion was voted down by one majority.

[ocr errors]

Though defeated, the friends of Crawford in the Legislature were not discouraged, and a few days later one hundred and fifty-seven of them met and adopted resolutions asking the Republican members of Congress from Virginia to endeavor to secure a caucus nomination.†

Almost at the same moment the Republican members in Congress from Pennsylvania issued an anti-caucus address to their constituents. They reminded them that ever since 1804 the presidential nominations of their party had been made by congressmen, that there had always been some opposition to this method, and that the events which happened in 1816 had aroused a firm belief in the minds of Republicans in many States that the wish of the people had not been heeded. The justness of this belief need not be discussed. It was enough to know that the people held it, and, knowing this, they had carefully considered what to do, and had decided that, owing to the pressure of public feeling in a majority of the States, many members would not go into caucus; that it would therefore be partial, and that a partial caucus they would not attend. The address ended with a recommendation that a convention of delegates be held at Harrisburg in March and select an electoral ticket pledged to none of the candidates.

So greatly were the members of Congress puzzled that a committee of twenty-four, representing fourteen States, was appointed to canvass the matter, find out how many congressmen thought a caucus inexpedient, and then publish the result for the information of the people. This committee ascertained that out of the two hundred and sixty-one members of the House and Senate one hundred and eighty-one deemed it

January 5, 1824.

+ Western Monitor, January 27, 1824.

January 6, 1824.

inexpedient.* The minority, however, were not deterred, and in the same issue of the newspaper which contained the report was the call for the caucus, signed by eleven congressmen.†

The hour selected was seven o'clock in the evening of the fourteenth of February, at which time sixty-six members took their seats in the representatives' chamber. Alarmed at the smallness of the number, an attempt was made to adjourn the meeting for a month. Van Buren, who was the leading spirit, opposed the idea. It was, he said, impossible to fix a time that would please everybody. Numbers were of no consequence. If the people approved the candidates chosen, they would approve of the proceeding no matter how slim the attendance. The members were then called up by States, and cast sixty-eight votes, for two absentees sent proxies. Of these votes Crawford received sixty-four, Adams two, and Jackson and Macon each one. For Vice-President the ballot stood, Albert Gallatin, fifty-seven. Nine votes were thrown away on eight other candidates. Crawford and Gallatin were then declared the choice of the caucus. At this announcement some of the crowd of onlookers in the gallery hissed, and were declared by the friends of Crawford to be clerks in the War Department.

The "Radical Caucus," the "Treasury Caucus"-as it was called by newspapers friendly to the anti-caucus candidates— having adjourned, the chairman made all haste to issue a long address to the Republicans of the United States. He reminded them that, pursuant to notice and agreeable to usage, the Republican members of Congress had met and recommended suitable persons to be President and VicePresident of the United States. That this proceeding had not been sanctioned by all was a matter of regret. But to suppose that the mass of Republican voters were against it was a mistake, and was disproved by the events of the past twelve months. Resolutions condemning the caucus method of nominating had been passed by the Legislature of Tennessee, and sent to every State in the Union. Already nine StatesMaine, New York, Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, Rhode

* National Intelligencer, February 6, 1824.

+ Ibid.

1824.

NEW ENGLAND FOR ADAMS.

65

Island, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana-sending one hundred and forty-six of the two hundred and sixty-one members of Congress, had acted. By the Republican Legislatures of Maine, New York, Virginia, and Georgia the Tennessee resolutions had been condemned. Elsewhere they had been postponed. In none except Maryland had they been indorsed and accepted. In South Carolina one house was for and the other against. Surely if these signs meant anything they meant that a large majority of the Republicans in the Union expected and desired just such a course as had been pursued. Any other would lead inevitably to the disruption of the party. Whether or not this should take place was for the voters to decide.*

The address served no purpose. It fell flat, and the nomination of anti-caucus candidates went on more vigorously than ever. A great meeting of Democratic Republicans at Faneuil Hall, in Boston one Sunday night, selected John Quincy Adams as the man best fitted to sustain the dignity and honor of the first office in the Republic. All New England indorsed this. In New Hampshire the Legislature balloted for the purpose of determining the favorite, and when he proved to be Adams by an almost unanimous vote, nominated an electoral ticket pledged to support him. In Connecticut a law was enacted giving the choice of electors to the people, and immediately a caucus of Republican members of the Legislature named an Adams ticket. The Maine Legislature declared that the splendid talents and incorruptible integrity, republican habits and principles of John Quincy Adams, and his devotion to the vital interests of his country, entitled him to the highest gift of a grateful people.# The Vermont Legislature was unanimous for Adams for President, and almost equally divided on Jackson and Calhoun for VicePresident.

The Democratic spirit of the time, the spirit which forced

* United States Gazette, February 19, 1824.

+ Account of the "Caucus," Washington Republican Extra, February 14, 1824.

February 15. Columbian Centinel, February 18, 1824. # United States Gazette, January 24, 1824.

« PreviousContinue »