factured articles more cheaply, and through fear that a high tariff would disturb the cotton market in England. New England, on the other hand, was at first so wedded to commerce as its chief industry that it favored free trade or a low tariff. But as its manufactories grew and clamored for more protection, and as it was further discovered that protection did not seriously injure commerce, that section came to favor a high protective tariff. Thus in the years following 1816 the two sections veered around and exchanged places on this great national question.1 The duties of 1816 were raised in 1824, and these again in 1828. This last measure was called the "Tariff of Abominations." It was supported by the free traders and made as obnoxious as possible by them in the hope that the country would become surfeited with protection; but New England swallowed it. This tariff gave occasion for the pent-up feelings in South Carolina to find an opening; but before continuing the subject, let us turn aside to notice an episode, indirectly connected with it, which brought on the most famous debate that ever took place in the United States Senate. It was in January, 1830, that Senator Foote of Connecticut introduced a resolution to limit the sale of public lands, or rather to inquire into the expediency of doing so, and from this arose the great debate which took a wider range, lasted over two months, and covered nearly every great question that had agitated the government since its foundation. At length, however, the debate narrowed down to the great rising issue between the North and the South, with slavery as its background, and threats of nullification and disunion as its immediate exponents-and it culminated in the famous oratorical contest between Robert Y. Hayne and Daniel Webster. Senator Hayne was a man of finished education and of refined and fascinating manners; he was as pure as a child in morals, as charming and unassuming in his ways; he had a soft, winning voice, was an able lawyer, and was possessed of much oratorical ability. And yet Hayne would scarcely be known to our national history but 1 It must be stated, however, that South Carolina was an exception in the South from the beginning. In this state high protection was never popular. In 1789 Senator Pierce Butler from that state" flamed like a meteor" against the proposed tariff, and charged Congress with "a design of oppressing South Carolina." In 1816, when Calhoun supported the protective tariff, he did so against the wishes of his constitu ents and was censured for it. He afterward came to agree with his constituents. 2 Sargent's "Public Men and Events," Vol. I, p. 171. THE PROPHET OF NATIONALITY Robert Y. Hayne. 489 for the fact that he drew from the greatest of American orators the greatest oration of his life. The speech of Hayne was one of the notable speeches of the period. It covered two days, and was made to a crowded chamber. In it Hayne advocated with much power the right of a state to render null and void an unconstitutional law of Congress. The Southerners gathered around him at the close to show their delight at having a champion, as they believed, who was more than a match for Webster. On the next day, with but one night for preparation, Webster rose to reply. He took the floor like a gladiator entering the arena; his appearance, always impressive, was especially so Webster's that day. He was at the prime of life, forty-eight great speech, years of age; and his raven black hair, high forehead, 1830. shaggy brow, broad shoulders, and deep, melodious voice made an impression on the audience never to be forgotten. Webster's argument was that the Constitution is supreme, the Union indissoluble, and that no state has the right to resist or to nullify a national law. His well-known closing peroration, ending with the words, "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable," is one of the most eloquent passages in the English language. The new This great oration awakened the people to the fact that a new prophet had arisen among them and so he was, a prophet of nationality. The old Federalist party had originally stood on the ground of extreme nationalism; but that party had ceased to be, and the Democratic party had now been in control for thirty years. This party was equally patriotic with its predecessor, but less pronounced on nationalism, and had some great upheaval occurred within these thirty years, who can tell what might have become of the Union? But now at this new menace to the integrity of the Union the new champion of the old doctrine of nationality arose in the person of Webster. But Federalism had not been dead, nor even sleeping, nor had it hovered as a disembodied spirit during those thirty years. Not only had its best principles been in a great measure adopted by the democracy; but a bridge of living Federalism had spanned this chasm of thirty years, from Hamilton to Webster, in the person of the great interpreter of the Constitution, John Marshall. It was Marshall above all men who gave to the Constitution the meaning that it has to-day. And now as the great jurist was grown old and ready to close his earthly labors, it was Webster who took up the cry of nationality and sounded it forth with a trumpet sound; and it took hold on the national mind, and increased more and more for thirty years, when it was strong enough to put down the mighty rebellion against the Union in the sixties. But Webster was not the only one, not even the chief one, to whom the nation owes its preservation in the thirties. This honor must be awarded the Democratic President. Webster was only a voice, and the case required action. Webster's doctrine was too new to take immediate hold upon a people who had so long been schooled in the doctrine of state sovereignty. The condition required action; it required one with power, and Jackson had the power. Had he the inclination, the will to do it? That was the great question in the spring of 1830. 2 The muttered rumblings of nullification were increasing in South Carolina. There was much dissatisfaction with the tariff of 1828 in other states, and some were belligerent in their The birthday utterances, but no other except South Carolina was so party. audacious as to defy the government. But what will Jackson do? He was a southern man. Would he decide against his own section and espouse the cause of the Union, the doctrine of this rising sun of Massachusetts? In a unique way it was decided to discover the views of the President on this great subject. A banquet was to be held in Washington on the birthday of Thomas Jefferson, the great apostle of democracy, April 13, and Jackson was invited to be present and to give a toast on a subject of his own choosing. He readily saw that the general object was, not so much. to honor Jefferson as to foster nullification and disunion and to make Jefferson the "pedestal of this colossal heresy," and the immediate object to discover his own views on the subject. Jackson attended. Many toasts were given, all bearing on state rights, and savoring of nullification. Jackson was then called on for a volunteer toast. He arose amid profound silence, for his views on the exciting subject were unknown. He announced his subject: "The 1 Marshall, in his great constitutional decisions, did an incalculable service to the country during this formative period; first, in strengthening the national government; second, in sustaining the power and dignity of the Federal courts; and third, in restricting the power of the states. 2 See the case of Georgia, Ames's State Documents, No. IV, 3 Benton. pp. 14-16. SOUTH CAROLINA AGAINST THE UNION 491 Federal Union; It must and shall be Preserved;" and he denounced as treason all movements toward nullification and disunion. His speech fell like a bomb in the ranks of the South Carolinians; they saw that they could get no sympathy from Jackson, that he was for the Union at all hazards. This occurred two and a half months after the great debate between Webster and Hayne, and a month before the final break between Jackson and Calhoun. Nullification. Notwithstanding the ominous warnings, the South Carolinians rushed on where angels might have feared to tread. Their state was in great turmoil; but it was in Washington that the seeds of disunion were nourished into growth under the leadership of Hayne. But Hayne was not the real leader; those who looked deeper than the surface could see the master hand of Calhoun beneath it all. Again in 1832 some tariff duties were raised, and South Carolina grew desperate. In November, 1832, the crisis came. A convention with the governor of the state as chairman, met at Columbia, and solemnly decided the tariff of 1828 and that of 1832 null and void in that state after the first of the following February, authorized the calling out of the militia, forbade any appeal to the Supreme Court, and declared. that if the government attempted to use force, the state would set up a government of its own. This was the famous ordinance of nullification. It was a bold and daring step for the little state to make, especially with such a man as Jackson to deal with at Washington. A few weeks after this the President came out with his famous December proclamation to the people of South Carolina, in which he showed them the folly of their action, appealed to them to pause in their madness, and warned them that if they went on the soil of their beloved state would be drenched in blood; for the general government could not and would not yield to their demands.1 The government, however, did yield to a compromise, the author of which was Henry Clay. By this compromise the duties above twenty per cent were to be reduced gradually for ten Compromise. years, when the uniform duty should be twenty per cent. It was agreed to by Calhoun, but was signed with reluctance by the President, as it was a partial yielding to the hotspurs of 1 To this the legislature of South Carolina made a rather defiant answer, and solemnly declared that any state had the right to secede from the Union. Ames's State Documents, No. IV, p. 43. South Carolina. At the same time, however, he had put through Congress the so-called Force Bill, which enabled him to send troops to South Carolina to enforce the collection of the revenue. This he did under General Scott; but no blood was shed and all was soon peaceful. South Carolina had made one serious miscalculation from the first. She expected other cotton states to follow her example; but instead of doing so, nearly all of them condemned her action. This fact doubtless explains her willingness to yield to compromise. THE REËLECTION AND THE BANK When Jackson first became President he had no thought of a second term, but at the urgent request of his friends, he decided to stand for reëlection, and Van Buren, whom the Senate had rejected as minister to England, was elected Vice President. From Jackson's private correspondence we learn that he would have preferred to spend the remainder of his days at the Hermitage, near the grave of his departed wife, and that with all his successes and with all his friends and admirers, he was a "sad and lonely old man." His chief object in consenting to serve a second term, if elected, was to carry out his designs against the United States Bank. His leading opponent was Henry Clay, whose party used the name National Republican. The Anti- There was another party also in the field in this election of 1832 -the Anti-Masonic party. It arose in the following way: A man named William Morgan of New York published a book disclosing the secrets of Freemasonry and in so doing awakened the implacable hostility of the Masons. One day he was abducted at Canandaigua, carried away in a closed carriage to Fort Niagara, and was never afterward seen or heard of by his friends. It was believed that he was sunk into the depths of Lake Ontario, and the deed was ascribed to the Masons. A violent wave of indignation against the Masonic fraternity spread through New York and adjoining states. Anti-Masonic societies were formed on all sides and they resolved themselves into a political party and entered the arena of national politics for the election of 1832. This party nominated William Wirt, twelve years attorney-general of the United States, for President, and carried one state, Vermont, in the election. The party soon dissolved, and it would scarcely be remembered but for the fact that it introduced into national politics three |