§ 581]

THE WEBSTER-HAYNE DEBATE

489

That paper argued (1) that the tariff was ruinous to the South; (2) that "protection" was unconstitutional; (3) that, in the case of an Act so injurious and unconstitutional, any State had a constitutional right peacefully to nullify the law within her borders, until Congress should appeal to the States and be sustained by three fourths of them- the number necessary to amend the Constitution and therefore competent to say what was and was not constitutional.

580. Jackson's election in 1829 relieved this tension for a time. His first inaugural declared his wish to show " a proper respect for the sovereign members of our Union"; and he was supposed to dislike the existing tariff. Under these conditions, the South hoped that relief might come without its taking extreme measures. During 1828-1829, Southern leaders pressed upon Jackson unceasingly the need of securing new tariff legislation. Then, unexpectedly, the question of nullification was argued in "the great debate on the floor of the Senate (January 19–29, 1830).

Senator Foote of Connecticut voiced the Eastern jealousy of Western growth by a resolution to stop the sale of public lands. The Westerners resented this attack on their development vigorously. Benton gladly seized the chance once more to set forth his plans for preëmption laws and other schemes to make easier the way for the pioneer. But soon the debate ranged far from the original matter. Senator Hayne of South Carolina denounced warmly the East's selfishness, pledged to the West the continued support of the South, and at the same time sought to draw the West to the doctrine of Calhoun's Exposition. Webster replied to Hayne's argument for nullification in two magnificent orations, stripping bare the practical absurdity of the doctrine, and portraying in vivid colors the glory of American Nationality.

581. Webster argued that the Constitution made us a Nation. To strengthen this position, he maintained that as one nation "we the people of the United States" had made the Constitution (§ 362). Here facts were against him; but this historical

part of his plea was really immaterial. The vital thing was not the theory of union held by a departed generation, but the will and needs of the throbbing present. And when he argued that the United States was now one Nation, and must so continue, he gave deathless form to a truth which, inarticulate before, had yet been growing in the consciousness of the progressive North and West. A brilliant picture of the manifold benefits of the Union closed with the splendid flight of eloquence which was to count in years to come for more than argument and more than armies:

"While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. Beyond that, I seek not to penetrate the veil. When my eyes shall be turned to behold, for the last time, the sun in heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on States dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance, rather, behold the gorgeous ensign of the Republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original lustre, not a stripe erased or polluted, not a single star obscured, bearing for its motto no such miserable interrogatory as, What is all this worth? Nor those other words of delusion and folly, Liberty first, and Union afterwards: but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American heart - Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"

Says Professor MacDonald (Jacksonian Democracy, 111): "Hayne argued for a theory, which, however once widely held, had been outgrown, and which could not under any circumstances be made to work. Webster argued for a theory, which, though unhistorical in the form in which he presented it, nevertheless gave the Federal government ground on which to stand. The one... looked to the past, the other to the present and future. Both were statesmen; both loved their country: but Hayne would call a halt, while Webster would march on."

582. The Southern leaders now arranged a Jefferson Day banquet at Washington (April 13, 1830), at which the toasts were saturated with State sovereignty. Jackson, the guest of honor, startled the gathering by proposing the toast

"Out

$ 584]

AND NULLIFICATION

491

Federal Union: it must be preserved." And soon he took advantage of several other opportunities to declare that he would meet nullification with force.

Jackson, however, did now recommend revision and reduction of the tariff; but he failed to get what he wanted. Clay thought he could defy both Jackson and Calhoun; and the new "tariff of 1832" removed only the absurd atrocities of 1828, returning to about the basis of 1824. This merely strengthened the principle of protection, and gave no relief to the South.

583. The South Carolina Congressmen now called upon their people to decide whether the rights and liberties which you received as a precious inheritance from an illustrious ancestry shall be surrendered tamely . or transmitted undiminished to your posterity." During the National campaign for Jackson's reëlection, a strenuous State campaign in South Carolina elected a legislature which by large majorities called a State convention. Jackson, meanwhile, strengthened the Federal garrison at Fort Moultrie (in Charleston harbor).

After five days of deliberation, the convention (November 19), .by a vote of 136 to 26, adopted an Ordinance of Nullification, declaring the tariff laws void within South Carolina, and threatening war if the Federal government should attempt to enforce them.

584. December 10, 1832, Jackson issued an admirable proclamation to the people of South Carolina, warning them of the peril into which they were running, and affirming his determination to enforce the laws by the bayonet if necessary. But to Congress, a few days before, he had once more recommended further revision of the tariff. The legislature of Virginia, at the suggestion of members of the Cabinet, urged compromise. Clay felt the whole protective system endangered, and he joined hands with Calhoun to draw a tariff bill acceptable to South Carolina, providing for a reduction of the duties in the tariff of 1832, to be made gradually, so that by 1842 no rate should exceed 20 per cent. This was a return to something lower than the practice in 1816.

On March 1, 1833, Congress passed both this compromise tariff and a Force bill giving the President forces to bring rebellious South Carolina to obedience; and the President took what satisfaction he could get by signing the Force bill a few minutes sooner than the Tariff bill. March 11, the South Carolina convention reassembled and rescinded the nullification ordinance. Both sides claimed. victory. South Carolina certainly had not yielded until she got all she had asked.

585. Whatever victory the President might possibly have boasted in South Carolina he weakened by permitting Georgia to nullify a treaty of the United States and a decision of the Supreme Court.

Georgia had enacted laws regarding certain lands which United States treaties declared to be Indian lands. A missionary to the Indians disregarded these pretended laws; and a Georgia court sentenced him to imprisonment for four years at hard labor. In March, 1832, the Supreme Court of the United States declared the Georgia statute void and ordered the release of the prisoner. "Well," exclaimed Jackson, "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce. it." The missionary remained in prison.

Jackson's conduct in the two cases is partly explained by the fact that in one case he hated Indians, while in the other case he hated Calhoun. Moreover, Georgia's success humiliated only John Marshall, whom Jackson disliked: South Carolina would have humiliated the authority of the President of the United States,-who happened just then to be Andrew Jackson.

Jackson had discovered that, years before, Calhoun had tried to persuade Monroe's Cabinet to have him (Jackson) censured for exceeding his military authority. Moreover, a frontiersman like Jackson was certain to sympathize with Georgia's attempts to rid her soil of the Indians. Jackson urged Congress repeatedly to remove all Indian tribes to the "Indian Territory" beyond the Mississippi. This policy was finally adopted in his second administration, giving rise to the brief "Black Hawk War" in the Northwest, and to the long-drawn-out Seminole War in the Everglades of Florida. No act, however, did more to confirm Jackson's popularity in the land-hungry and somewhat ruthless West.

§ 586]

AND THE BANK

493

586. Jackson took his reëlection in 1832 as a verdict from the people against the Bank. Its charter had three years still to run; but in 1833 Jackson insisted that the Secretary of the Treasury should thereafter deposit government funds, as they came in, with certain "pet" State banks instead of with the National Bank. Two Secretaries had to be removed before he found one willing to take this step; and the Senate, still controlled

A CONTEMPORARY JACKSON PRINT. Part of a large sheet presenting "Incidents in the life of General Jackson," published in 1840 in New York. From an original in the Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Association. The scene represents a rustic festival gathered to honor "the old hero." Girls will notice the gowns and bonnets of the belles in the foreground.

by the hold-over Whigs, passed a formal censure of the President - which his followers some months later managed to have expunged.

The "dying monster," as Jackson men called the Bank, fought savagely. Indeed it did not believe it was dying. Biddle was confident he could force a new charter through Congress over Jackson's veto. August 1, 1833, he ordered the twenty-six branch banks to call in loans and reduce their banknote circulation, so as to make "hard times," claiming of course