. r L
.. $10...“ .1
r....v..w.....§§.£ .
.w» Jmmlwﬁm. . “~11 .


. .15. .r.
“5....
I. . a
. Am.
, . 4 i‘ . i’
. 2%.‘
.
q ‘1 w
1
_. .
» .2. .r'. r.
.flrwadrw‘ '
A, 3 hr... . . I . . . . . . . . . . .
.2... r, I . . .. . . . . ¢ 1..., f. 0.5411,.‘ . . i Z I... . . .
54.7., . . . 6 . . ,, ﬂrwﬁvuawwuﬁfﬁm.... . . ..Nw....,..$+..mmn..nv ‘1.5.3,...
. . 1. . . . f? . a ‘r, . .. 2 Z . T92: . .
$9.64. r: "03%."? 2.1”", . ...................~ . : , . r... . ,
.. 4.! ‘1'4 .5! . .,'.¢, 'Jldrn i . . . . .. . . . .. .
4 a, .14.. I r Qnitrﬁimr . a i ‘ 1 $1.! I ‘#5 . . , . . rd
,H. 4? , . a”, £4.34... .. . . . .7 ._ . . U . . . .. . . . .V a.» . ... , . . v, . F .3 . N .. . . . (#51... .
M ; U: r , . . . . . . ~ . . a 4 . rrw .r - . 45.‘.
. f. 2/1... . . . a . . . : . , . . . 21.... $5,. I, , . v
.9535.“ . .. . . .. . . . . . . k 3.92....
.. . . ,. . . . if... . . . 2 . ..r.
Zr xv. . . . 1. 4/ 1. . f» . . . . (v.7 . . . . . . . .I .6 M1 . . . .r... .
. 4.. ; . /. . . I. , . , . . . . a . Ham... .. . my“... ,
. . . in? 1%. Jﬂwrufe .r . . . fwﬁﬂ..."
w - q.i : -¢ . .*,1.% i
w? ., .. .ﬁﬁ? . ¢%%£%a:
. I. , h
.. \1, .. 1 ma... . .i 3“. .1. . :1.‘
. as... .... ...~ . , Jvﬁnwﬁmmn
5.,
. . L t. if- It»... . i . .
. (a . ,7, . . . . 3 a... 52.1.
r.
,
.-
@ﬁ
1;. . . . .
I 5., . . . :14 . .. , ,
.. . , . Q. . . . . , . . .
85%”? . . .www . , . . f .
1m , . . . I . .22.). . .. .. L .. . , , . . ﬁmﬁﬁﬂqnﬂhmriumwuﬂmw. + . "a. . évwuiimwwé
I}: 2:
‘5,. . .. ..
r I , .
u» , .. .. ... ., wunhﬁalr. . .. .. ,T . .11. . 13‘.- . l
W A. . 4.3., ha... 1 . 5) r . ..
,
rt; .1... ; .1 .3. . 1..
v‘ F. .
4.1.4:
r: .
hale...»
.f /. 16H
.WWWV. .
I. . y . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . £2.15.“
rw.‘ . .
"a?
. . {Av
.. n '0 42.1.
@511»... ‘r.
w.
.V.»
r.
a
. , .. i .1 . ..
z . . . . 1.4.4...- .u...
w;
w
9.
‘I
.xt..... .. . 4?2@5;2.;. ,Fﬂ
ﬁx . l . . . . . . amﬂwwmmwmnﬂ .- .r/lf/w/rmx .Jﬁw/N. . .. . . “Perm” Mﬁwﬂﬁr».
.yﬁwwiﬁ .ﬁ . . . 9.9.5.17; , w» a . . 5...’? 2 .. 1;»!
.,..Qw,...v> 1.. ..~W....,,U..HL . . .. . .é.ﬂ..Z/,.,..,..,,...w...... r. 3,, iw/I»,
1...
‘my
‘.
I I .\
>‘l
~k".
~
(1 ‘A.
4/
J; a 6?.
1am” 1.. mw'nMv/n. <4?! » 1..- J .
. . . . , .. .49... . // . $.03. 3.. r. w... x .
U.) r. . 31w.” .. / . / .JK/d... K 1m». 7.30%.“? . 9...‘... ﬂywrwwxw r. . a;
Z. .. . , . K”... . f... . . .5 # .vw, . Q . x , . . Remix: . .
.14
n
1.‘ - . . .. e (I);
. .17 4.1!. . .r .. .. ,4 .7 .1. ,1. ,
1 . . .p . r . » tr 11.
rap/Fwy EMU/adv?!“ .3 . ,. ,7, r»
. .
- ...
.. . .f . , 5,5. . F;
. 14> I , a r on.‘
u/umv “a. I? ‘
i
"L.
4
.i! I .4‘ . .w
.25. . .1; Ar . . n1 ;. . . . .
£1 . . . I . , . . . . . . . , . .
. , t 1...?! . . . . . . . , . . . . . I . I . . . .
. , , . . 1.58..
. - . éé?
. .xsﬁﬁlnali .
1.
~"
h‘
W1"!


...:ﬁgwéﬁwﬁgEﬁmﬁm HE...
___%a=._,.,.==.@_.w_w_m_h__:a}
v.;..,.:.il -:
=5 . .3.

U .E. ===._.W_M_ ==_.=
luuu
“ﬂ.,~_'-.L~L_u ,
n
1mm " IN

‘
REG
.-
1
“
.~ “
.-
_
.-
.
ll!
_‘E5____.___=.k.e_i _,___.§_Y\_\..‘


: 1. 1.‘ , J‘, ,. ‘ luii‘ 4. .
Ragga? 5...? , ,_ . _ _._=_=____.\__._=._.___
._5253:5355"?aw‘535$
CI'F- ‘
A . V H. . , ._ . 1 .
% l, . . : . . . ‘Tl. .lllfili'ﬂl.
i
‘ ‘I'D-L
I ‘n
‘ mm
mm:
m 1'
., n'rn'mn

\TK _.
:3 /

-I__-_J ‘—
POLITICAL HISTORY
UNITEU “STATES;
POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY AND CITIZENSHIP; BIRTH AND
GROWTH OE THE COLONIES; MARCH TO INDEPEN,
DENCE; CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT;
PRESIDENTS AND ADMINISTRATIONS;
CON GRESSES AND POLITICAL MEASURES; PARTY PLAT-
FORMS AND PRINCIPLES;
RISE AND FALL CF PARTIES.
QUESTIONS OF THE HOUR——
CIVIL SERVICE REFORM, POLYGAMY, PROHIBITION,
SURPLUS REVENUE,

THRIFF 2E FREE TRHDE;
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST, REVIEW OF TARIFF ACTS.
.,,..»/""“’*~’
BY JAMES P'.’ EOYD, A.M.,
AUTHOR OF “ MILITARY AND CIVIL LIFE OF GENERAL U. 5. GRANT,” -
wommxs or THE HEAVENS, EARTH AND ocEAN," “ TEAcIIER’s BIBLE DICTIONARY,”
“ HISTORY OF DENoMINATIoNs,” ETC.

ELABORATELY ILLUSTRATED.

P. W. ZIEGLER & CO.,
PHILADELPHIA, PA. ; CHICAGO, 111..
1888.

J A M E s P , B O Y D

EXCHANGE
CLUB-AND PUBLIC LlBRAR!
r
JUN ta
v’
/"
PREFACE.
N this book the author seeks to present correct and
desirable information respecting the political origin,
growth and management of our government. Or-
dinarily this kind of information is beyond popular
reach, or if accessible, it too often comes tinged
with partisan color. As no branch of knowledge
is more useful than that which appertains to our
I political institutions, so none should shine in a
" clearer light, or be more freely at the disposal of
our people. The author is fully aware of the diﬁ‘iculty of compressing
all that ought to be known of the political side of our country into a
single volume. Yet with proper arrangement and succinct statement
I? he is hopeful of making a book which will prove both entertaining
and useful to the general reader, as well as proﬁtable to those who
'. incline to a closer study of political affairs.
' His plan is to ﬁrst set the reader to thinking about the nature of
the Republic, and his duty as a citizen under it. He is then invited
to a brief study of those little colonial pictures which once dotted the
Atlantic coast and formed the starting points of our national ex-
istence. With a fair conception of them he will have a key to un-
lock many subsequent political mysteries. Especially will he know
when and why the drift set in toward the great American Republic,
and the manner of men into whose hands its destinies were to fall.
Following the chain of events link by link, he will be gradually led
forward toward Colonial Independence, the ﬁrst appearance of Federal
government under the Articles of Confederation, and then to the
complete government under the present Constitution. To have a
clear conception of our political existence up to this interesting period
is certainly a satisfactory and essential part of an every-day education.


(3)
4 PREFACE.
Passing into our Constitutional existence, the reader will then be
asked to glance at the measures 'by which we acquired our immense
territory, subdivided it into States, and ﬁnally made those States com-
ponent parts of the Union. Turning to the Federal Machinery, or
Method of Government, he will learn how Presidents are chosen, how
Congresses, Cabinets, Courts and Departments are formed—what
they are all for and what they all do. With an understanding of this
vast and intricate system, he will be prepared to take the next step in
the author’s plan.
It would not be fair to the average reader to say that he is less in-
terested in our earlier than our later political history; yet, true it is
that many prefer to date their political knowledge no further back
than the ﬁrst Administration of Washington, and to conﬁne it to those
events which constitute practical politics and largely reﬂect the senti-
rnents and embrace the measures of the respective political parties.
In order to gratify the fullest wish in this respect the author presents
an impartial outline of all the Administrations, of the political policy
which shaped and dominated each, of the political measures framed '
by all the Congresses, and of the origin, principles and conduct of all
the National political parties. He has given in this connection the
facts just as found in the best records, ofﬁcial and otherwise, and with
no other motive than to preserve the historic verities. From the
amount of labor and care bestowed on this branch of our political
history it is the author’s hope that it will be found refreshing to those
who have lived through portions of it, a source of grateful instruction
to our younger people, and a reliable fountain whence debaters, public
speakers and legislators can readily draw .when they wish to prime
themselves for special occasions. I '
To complete the plan of the book, a view is taken of the political
questions which constitute the issues of the day. They are under dis-
cussion now, and will be for some time. Knowledge of them is de-
sirable and proper, and what is found under each subject is simply an
impersonal and non-partisan presentation of the facts with a view to
making history rather than inﬂuencing sentiment.
The effort, throughout, has been to preserve a crisp and cheerful
style so as to convey pleasure as well as instruction. If such a
history seems in anywise to create a higher respect for our political
institutions, or a broader and better citizenship, the author’s wish in
preparing it will not have been a vain one.
CONTENTS.
POPULAR SOVEPEIGNTY AND CITIZENSHIP.
The forms of government—Nature of Democracy—What is a Republic ?—-A
Commonwealth-Popular government—Sovereignty—Origin of sovereignty
—-What is required of the citizen—What the State asks-—How to qualify for
citizenship—The school of the campaign—The school of historic and politi-
cal reading—The true qualiﬁcation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-23
BIRTH AND GROWTH OF THE COLONIES—MARCH TOWARD
INDEPENDENCE—ACQUIRING THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
First owners of our soil—European titles—Are our titles good P—First English
patent—England wins a continent—French and Spanish claims—National
rivalries—Raleigh’s Huguenot scheme—First Colonial charter—English foot-
hold at Jamestown—The settlers and their government—Tobacco, cotton and
slaves—Maryland and Lord Baltimore—Plymouth Council—First Puritan,
or Pilgrim, advent—Second Puritan advent—Massachusetts on the map- '
Birth of Rhode Island—Connecticut takes shape—A united New England—-
Freaks of Charles II. in the Coloniesé—Great Colonial progress—Dawn of
North Carolina—South Carolina and Locke’s famous Constitution—The *1
Dutch realm—The Swede holds the Delaware—New Jersey rises ‘amid
Dutch ruins—The Quaker and Pennsylvania—Last of the Dutch realm and
dawn of New York—Independent Delaware—Georgia and Oglethorpe’s
asylum—English revolution of I688, and results to the Colonies—Outlines
of the old thirteen States—French Empire west of the Allegheuies—Eng-
land gets to the Mississippi—Her bad ﬁnancial ﬁx—Drift toward American
Independence—Taxation and a Colonial Congress—The ﬁrst American
party—Tea act and another Congress—Congress and Colonial Union—-
Declaration of Independence—The Congress and government of the revolu-
tion—Union of the Confederation—State cessions of public domain and
further building—The Louisiana purchase—Spain cedes Florida—The
Oregon treaty—Texas annexation—Mexican cession—Gadsden purchase-
Alaskan purchase—Grand Territorial summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5-1 12
(5)
6 CONTENTS.
FROM COLONY TO STATE—THE UNITED STATES UNDER
THE ARTICLES AND THE CONSTITUTION.
From Colony to State—Govemment of the revolution—Articles of the Confed-
eration—Their merits and defects—Origin of the great seal of the Union—
History of the National Flag—Dawn of the Constitution—History of its
framing and adoption-—The new government started—Sentiment of the
fathers—The old thirteen States—Adjusting the National Territory—Intro-
duction of new States—Reasons why they came—Order of admission—Ter-
ritorial history of each—Tearing down and rebuilding—Organization of the
Territories—Completion of the political structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 13-150
THE FOUR GREAT PAPERS, EMBRACING CARDINAL PRINCI-
PLES OF THE REPUBLIC.
Declaration of Independence—Full text of the document—Fac-simile auto-
graphs of all the signers.
Articles of Confederation—Full text of the Articles—Resolution of the Con-
tinental Congress respecting them.
Constitution of the United States—Full text of the instrument—All the
amendments—Dates when proposed and adopted—Resolution of the conven-
tion—Washington’s address to the Congress.
Washington’s Farewell Address—Full text of the immortal production—
Eloquent dying exhortations to the people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151-185
OUR PLAN OF GOVERNMENT—THE GREAT BRANCHES AND
DEPARTMENTS—DESCRIPTION OF ENTIRE GOVERNMENT
MACHINERY.
The three great branches of government—Legislative Branch—Congress, its
divisions, and how formed—The Senate, its nature, powers and duties—-
Election of Senators—Senate machinery—House of Representatives—Elee-
tion of members of Congress—Their number, and manner of apportionment—
Organization of the House—Territorial Delegates—House machinery—The
way laws are made—Congressional library—Public Printing-offices. . . ..!87—200
Executive Department—President-making—Presidential electors—The Elec-
toral College—Choosing of electors—President’s duties and powers—His
Cabinet—How chosen, with a history of its growth—The Vice-President,
his powers and duties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201-207
Department of State—Its history, nature and duties —Machinery of the
Department—The Diplomatic Service—Ministers Plenipotentiary—Ministers
Resident—Charge d’AFFaires and Secretaries of Legation—Consular Service
—All the Secretaries of State, with date of their appointment. . . . . . .. .208—212
Treasury Department—Creative acts—Secretary of Treasury, his powers and
duties—Machinery of the Department—All the Divisions and Bureaus—
Ofﬁcers of each and their duties—The Customs Service—Internal Revenue
Service—National Banks, their history, how founded and erected—Their
circulation and uses—-National debt and bonds—History of the various debts,
CONTENTS. 7
and of our present funding system—The National credit—Losses of the
Treasury Department under the respective Administrations—All the Secre-
taries of the Treasury, with the dates of their appointment . . . . . . . . . . . . .213-227
The War Department—History of the Department—Powers and duties of
the Secretary—Machinery of the Department, its sub-departments, Bureaus
and Divisions —Signal-ofﬁce and Weather Bureau—All the Secretaries of War,
with dates of their appointment—The United States Army, its organization,
size and discipline—Military Academy, its studies, oﬁicers and students. .228-236
The Navy Department—History of its organization—Powers and duties of
the Secretary of Navy—The Bureaus and sub-divisions of the Department-—
The Naval Academy, its studies, olﬁcers and students—United States Navy,
organization and discipline—Marine Corps—All the Secretaries of Navy,
with dates of appointment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .237—241
Interior Department—History of its organization—Powers and duties of the
Secretary of Interior—The Land Ofﬁce and public land system—Pension
Office, with history of pension system—Indian Affairs, and our dealings with
the natives—The Patent Oﬁice-—Census Ofﬁce, with method of taking censuses
—Bureau of Education—All the Secretaries of the Interior, with dates of
their appointment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .242—2 5 I
Post-oﬁice Department—History of its organization, and of the various
postal systems—Powers and duties of Postmaster-General—Machinery of the
Department—Modern features of our postal system—All the Postmasters-
General, with dates of appointment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 52-254
Department of Justice—History of the Department—Powers and duties of
the Attorneys-General—All the Attorneys-General, with dates of appoint-
ment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
Department of Agriculture—Creative act—Powers and duties of Commis~
sioner of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 56
Judicial Department--The third co-ordinate branch of government; itsim-
portance in the political system—Uses and powers of the Judiciary—Its
machinery and methods of working—The Supreme Court of the United
States—How oflicered and worked—All the Judges, with dates of appoint-
ment and terms of service—The Circuit Courts—Their oﬁ‘icers and the
Circuit Districts—The District Courts, their organization, powers and duties
—-National Court of Claims—District Attorneys, Marshals and Juries—
Admiralty and Maritime Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .257—266
Government of the Territories—How Federal power passes into them-
Government of the District of Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .267-270
EARLY’POLITICS—PRESIDENTS AND ADMINISTRATIONS—
CONGRESSES AND POLITICAL MEASURES—RISE AND
FALL OF PARTIES.
Parties in general—Uses of Parties—First Parties—Parties of the Revolution—-
Of the Confederation—Of the Constitution—Parties of the new government
—-Federal and Anti-Federal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .271-276
Washington’s First Administration—The vote, the Cabinet, and the Con-
gresses-—The Constitutional Amendments—Commerce and the Tariff—-
3 ' CONTENTS.
Hamilton’s policy—The First National Bank—The Whisky Rebellion-
Political conditions—Second Presidential election-r—Rise of the Republican
party’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .277-285
Second Administration—The vote, Cabinet and Congresses-Policy of the
new Administration—Trouble with France—A ntagonism of England—The
ﬁrst foreign policy—Fierce party contests in Congress—Eleventh Amendment
to the Constitution—Amended Tariff Act—Republican attack on the Adminis-
tration—Conﬂict between the House and President over Jay’s treaty—Wash-
ington’s farewell address—Election of I796 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286-295
Adams’ Administration—The vote, Cabinet and Congresses—Policy of the
Administration—Armed neutrality—Envoys to France—Alien and Sedition
laws—Naturalization law—Federal and Republican policies-—-Kentucky and
Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and I799—Election of 1800—First political
platform-—Disputed election—Transfer of the Capitol to Washington.. . .296-305
Jeﬁ'erson’s Administrations—Votes, Cabinets and Congresses—The great
political revolution—Nature of the new power—Removals from office—Pur-
chase of Louisiana—First articles of impeachment—Election of 1804—The
political situation—Burr’s trial—Internal improvements—Party measures—-
Embargo act—Election of 1808—Character of the campaign . . . . . . . . . . . 306-319
Madison’s Administrations—Votes, Cabinets, and the Congresses-—The
Political Situation—Failure to re-charter a National Bank—Declaration of
War—Tariff of ISM—Election of I812—The Clinton platform—Attitude of
States and Parties—The war and the treaty of Ghent—Political results——
Hartford Convention—Death of the Federal party—A new National Bank
~~Election of 1816 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .320-331
Monroe's Administrations—The votes, the Cabinets, the Congresses—The
inaugural—Era of good feeling—Policy of the President-Jackson’s invasion
of F lorida—Purchase of Florida—Beginning of the slavery agitation—Mis-
souri Compromise—Election of I820—The Monroe Doctrine—Clay’s “Amer-
ican 'System ”—~Financial distress—Tariff of 1824——Disputed election of
1824--Disruption of the Republican party . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .332-345'
John Q. Adams’ Administration—The vote, Cabinet and Congresses—The
National Republican (Whig) party—Democratic party—First Convention of
Protectionists—Restatement of the “ Monroe doctrine ”--Tariff act of 1828
—-Election of 1828 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .346-350
Jackson's Administrations—The Votes, Cabinets and Congresses—jackson’s
policy—Victor and spoils—Anti~Masonic party—The pocket veto—Webster’:
and Hayne’s debate—Tariff of 1832-33—Election of 1832—Party platforms
—-Nulliﬁcation—Death of the National Bank—Surplus revenue—Panic of
1837 —- First nominating conventions — Election of 18 36 -- Anti-slavery
party . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 I-372
Van Buren’s Administration—Vote, Cabinet and Congresses—The Presi-
dent's policy—Independent Treasury act—Slavery agitation—Election of
1840 and Whig success—Party platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373—379
Harrison's and Tyler’s Administration—Vote, Cabinet and Congresses-—
Harrison’s death—Tyler deserts the Whigs—Clay’s retirement—Tariff of
1842-—Texas and the Slavery question—Election of 1844—54° 40’ or ﬁght
--Theplatforms and
CONTENTS. 9
Polk’s Administration—Vote, Cabinet and Congresses—T he message—-Mexi-
can War—First appearance of the American party—Wilmot Proviso—Oregon
Boundary—Tariff of 1846—Treaty of Guadaloupe- Hidalgo— Calhoun
threatens secession—The Oregon bill—Election of 1848—Platt'orms and
nominees—Free Soil Democrats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .389—398
Taylor’s Administration—~Vote, Cabinet and Congresses—Calhoun’s new
doctrine-l—Compromise of 1850—Taylor’s death—The political situation-—
Popular sovereignty—Election of I852—-The parties and platforms—Nebraska
bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399-407
Pierce’s Administration—Vote, Cabinet and Congresses—Political situation
—-Kansas and Nebraska bill—Native American Party—Line of 36° 30’
Kansas trouble—Election of 1856—Rise of the Republican party—Tariﬁ' of
1857—Panic of 1857 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..4o8-420
Buchanan's Administration—Vote, Cabinet and Congresses—Political situa-
tion—Dred Scott Decision—squatter sovereignty and slavery—John Brown
raid—The Lecompton Constitution—Covode inquiry—Election of 1860—
Conventions and platforms—Division in the Democratic party—-EFforts at
Compromise—The secession movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .421-434
Lincoln’s Administrations—Political situation—Secession and VVar—War
legislation in the Congresses—Tariff of 1861—The attitude of parties—The
Greenback system—Abolition of Slavery—Election of I864—Parties and
platforms—Peace and Assassination—Reconstruction under Johnson—Oppo-
sition to his party and impeachment—Election of 1868—Parties and plat-
forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..435-46I
Grant’s Administrations—Vote, Cabinet and Congresses—Difficult recon- _
struction—The political situation—Legal tenders—Election of I87 2——Liberal
Republicanparty—Conventions and platforms—Tariff of 1874— Resumption
act—Dawn of civil service reform—Civil rights bill—Election of 1876-—
The parties and their platforms—The disputed result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .462-48 5
Hayes’ Administration—Political Situation—Silver‘coinage—Civil service
reform—Chinese bill—Election of I880—Parties and Platforms . . . . . . . .486—496
Garﬁeld’s and Arthur’s Administration—Vote, Cabinet and Congresses-
Garﬁeld’s assassination—Arthur’s Cabinet—Tariff of 1883—New postal law
—Reduction of internal revenue—Civil service reform bill—The civil service
commission—Message to 48th Congress—Measures of 48th Congress—“ Hor-
izontal reduction ” of taritI—The Blair educational bill—Party conventions
—Party candidates—Platforms of all parties—The campaign—Election of
I884—The political revolution—Retiracy of President Arthur.. . . . . ..497—5 I 3
Cleveland's Administration—The electoral count—Popular vote—Ofﬁcers
of the Cabinet—President’s inaugural—The political situatiom—Death of
Vice-President Hendricks—First session of 49th Congress—é'l‘he President’s
Message—The protection element in the Democratic party—Strength of
parties in the Congress—Election of Mr. Carlisle as Speaker—Controversy
between the President and Senate—The Morrison tariﬁ' bill—End of the
session—49th Congress, 2d session—The President’s message—The political
‘outlook—A short and confused session—Revenue reduction—Enmity toward
the tariff—The anti-polygamy bill—Inter-state commerce—Trade Dollars—
r 10 CONTENTS.
Pensions to Mexican soldiers—End of the Congress—50th Congress, Ist
session—The President’s short and special message—Its free trade views—
The Treasury surplus—Joy of the President’s friends—Criticism of the Pro-
tectionists—A square issue—The amended Cabinet—The Fishery Question—
The amount of Treasury surplus—The political outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514-528
PRESENT POLITICAL QUESTIONS. "
Civil Service Reform—Its nature—History abroad—History at home—First
attempts at reform—Second attempts at reform—The Pendleton law—Civil
Service Commission and its work—Arguments for and against Civil Service. I a-zla
Polygamy—History of Mormonism—Mormon condition—Mormon creed-
Polygamy proper—Congressional legislation—Sentiment for and against. 25a-4Ia
Prohibition—What it is—Historic growth-rLocal option—Direct Law—Pro-
hibition party—For and against—Several phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42a-57a
Surplus Revenue—History of, abroad—History of, at home—The present
question—Arguments for and against . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . ..58a—7Ia
Protection and Free Trade—Nature of the subject—Labor and capital—
Free Trade-—Protection—Taxation—TariﬂF—The English policy—British
Colonial policy—The American Thought—Free Trade era—Nature of the
new powers—Tariff and Free Trade legislation—For and against—The
protective era—Cleveland’s message to 50th Congress—Its Free Trade tenor— ''
Attitude of Free Trade Democrats—Views of Protection Democrats—Opposi- '
tion of Protectionists—Sentiment of English newspapers—Review of the
controversy of 1888—Shaping of party lines—Modern logic of Protection-—
Statistics of growth for twenty-ﬁve years—The policy of protecting labor—Free
raw materials—Where manufacture begins and ends—Monopoly and privi-
loged classes—All the arguments pro and con. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72a—112a

_ _
_
_ _
F...
_
a.
I
a
_
_
~
_
N
w
_
M.

__-
POPULAR _
SOVEREIGNTY AND CITIZENSHIP.

N a democracy, where the right of making laws resides in
the people at large, publicvvirtue, or goodness of in-
tention, is more likely to be found than either of the
other qualities of government. Popular assemblies are
frequently foolish in their contrivance and weak in their
execution, but generally mean to do the thing that is right and just
and have always a degree of patriotism and public spirit. . . . .
Democracies are usually the best calculated to direct the end of
law; aristocracies to invent the means by which that end shall
i
be obtained; and m'onarchies to carry these means into execu-
tion—Blackstone, Vol. i., p. 49.
This division of government into three forms is almost as old
as the oldest writings on politics and law. ‘It is only a general
division, for there are other kinds of government besides these,
but all kinds were, and are, regarded as reducible to one or the
other of these heads.
Though it is not Blackstone’s division, yet what he says of the
merits of each kind of government is pretty generally accepted
as true,and is taught in law and political schools. While his
comparative view is brief, apt and suggestive, it is nevertheless
the view of one who drew on his then historic past for the ma-
terial out of which to weave opinions. In that past were many
(11)
12 ‘ POLITICAL HISTORY OF
democratic experiments, some of them pure democracies, others
modiﬁed democracies called republics, whose rapid rise, bright
meteoric career and swift decline, warranted his view.*
He did not teach that there was anything solid and enduring
about a democracy. Had he written but 'yesterday he would
have Written amid greater light and perhaps not so much in
sympathy with the notion which is so largely abroad in mon-
archies and aristocracies that our grand American experiment is
but a “ Great Republican Bubble.”
You hear the words “democracy” and “republic” used in-
discriminately. Perhaps you so use them yourself. If so, your
ideas may be clear respecting them, but such use is liable to lead
to confusion in the minds of others, unless their full meaning be
understood.
DEMOCRA Cl/P-The democracy to which Blackstone refers
is doubtless a pure democracy; that is, the democracy in which
the demos, or people, met in periodic assembly, talked over their
public affairs, passed their laws and elected their rulers, very much
as We meet at our annual, or other, elections to record our wishes,
except that their assembly was a deliberative body like our legis-
latures or congress, as well as a voting-body.
A better idea of it may be gotten by supposing that all the
* The popular assembly of Athens could not consist of less than 6,000 citizens.
The general assembly of Sparta was attended by all the freemen of Laconia. The
republic of Venice, and the short-lived republics of Genoa and Pisa, were only repub,‘
lies in name. The people ultimately lost their power to ambitious doges and coun-
cils. The truest democracy was that of the ancient German tribes, where affairs of
government were discussed and settled at their festal gatherings. That these were
“ foolish in their'contrivance and weak in their execution,” may be accepted. as true,
for all hands were encouraged to get gloriously drunk on the principle that they
would then let out the true secrets of their mind.
1- Boynton in his “ Four Great Powers ” says: “ It (the rebellion) has proved that
a popular government is not necessarily a weak one, and that a free unwarlike
people, unused to the restraints of thorough organization and discipline, can yet as-
sume almost at once the highest forms of national life, can reshape, without con-
fusion, their whole industrial energy to meet the demands of sudden war, can bring '
forth, organize and hold in hand all their resources, and with all the skill and science
of the age, can wield a thoroughly compacted national strength, greater in propor-
tion _to population than has been exhibited by any other power on earth.”
THE UNITED STATES. 13
voters of a state* should say to themselves, “We will not go
to the trouble and expense of voting for members to represent
us in the legislature, but we will all go to the capitol, or place of
assemblage, and in popular meeting pass the laws ourselves.”
This would be the true and original general assembly of the
demos, or people, and such a government would be. a pure
democracy. It is quite plain'that such a form of government
would be ﬁtted for only a very primitive people and a very small
state. '
There is no such thing as a democracy in this sense now. It
would be too heavy and too unwieldy a piece of machinery. to
work, or if it went at all, it would be very noisy and- uncertain in
its motion. The democracy which is meant by an every-day use
of the word, or by the word when left unexplained, is democracy
in its secondary or modiﬁed sense; that is, democracy in a repre-
sentative form.
we do not all go to the general assembly to make laws, but
we go to the polls and vote for some one to go in our stead, to
represent us there, as the saying is. We still preserve the name
“general assembly”—though largely substituted by the word
“legislature”—-to designate the place of meeting, not of the
people at large, or of such of them as are called voters, but of
the people through and by means of their chosen representatives.
We are not in the general assembly directly, but we are there
indirectly. We do not speak there with our own mouths but
through our chosen mouth-pieces. We do not vote directly for
our laws, but our representatives, who ‘are supposed to know our
wishes and who are responsible to us, vote for us. This is a
*Or rather all the people of a state, for the Declaration of Independence says
“ governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed ;” and
the preamble to the Constitution reads, “ \Ve the people do ordain and establish,
etc. ; ” upon which Judge Sharswood remarks, “that in the freest nations—even in
the republics which compose the United States—-tlie consent of the entire people
has never been expressly obtained. The people comprehend all the men, women
and children of every class and age. A certain number of men have assumed to
act in the name of all the community. The qualiﬁcation of electors or voters was in
general settled by the colonial charters, as well as the principle that the acts of a
majority of such electors were binding on the whole.”
14 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
much cheaper and handier kind of democracy than that ﬁrst
spoken of. It is the kind which must be understood when the
term “ democracy ” is used without explanation, or in connection
with our form of government. This government then is not a
pure democracy, but a modiﬁed, or representative democracy;
nevertheless it is a democracy.
REPUBLIC—And as a democracy, it is equally a republic,
for ‘_‘ republic” is very well deﬁned as a form of government in
which the sovereign, or law-making, power is exercised by
means of representatives chosen by the people. The two terms,
“ democracy” and “ republic,” here come together in their mean-
ing, and one may be used for the other without fear of con-
fusion. -
COMMON WEAL TH—You ﬁnd in your reading other terms
used to convey the same idea as “democracy” or “republic.”
The word “ commonwealth” is one of them. And a very good
Word it is, too. Commonwealth is the common weal, health or
happiness. It was not the democracy or republic of Cromwell,*
but the commonwealth of Cromwell, though strictly it was all
three, using democracy in its secondary sense as above explained.
And this word “ commonwealth” is much used by the respec-
tive States of our Union, as the “Commonwealth of Pennsyl-
Vania,” “ Commonwealth of Virginia,” etc. Indeed, so popular
and well ﬁxed has this usage of the word become that it may be
said to distinguish the smaller or fractional republic, otherwise
called a State, from the Federal Republic, otherwise called the
United States.
POPULAR GO VERNMENT—The phrase “popular gov-
ernment,” or “ popular form of government,” is common among
speakers and writers when they refer to a democracy or republic.
It is a pleasing phrase and hath much meaning. Every govern.-
ment which is endured, liked and sustained is in one sense
“popular.” In another sense every government which is par-
, * The word “ commonwealth ” has got a meaning in English history as the form
of government established on the death of Charles I., in 1649, and which existed
under Cromwell and his son Richard, ending with the abdication of the latter in
1659.
THE UNITED STATES.’ 15
tially representative, as a limited monarchy, is popular. But see
the different shades of meaning embraced in the word “ popular."
In the ﬁrst sense a despotism may be a popular form of govern-
ment, in that the people may like it, but in the sense that they
participate in it, help to carry it on, it is most decidedly
unpopular.
In the expression “popular government” the word “popu-
lar ” has, therefore, its true and original meaning, “ of or belong-
ing to the people.” Perhaps the-expression was never so happily
paraphrased as when Mr. Lincoln, referring to our “ popular
form of government ” in his oration at Gettysburg, called it “ a
government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Popular is what is of and belongs to the popular, the people.
The popular voice is the people’s voice. The popular vote is
the people’s vote. Popular elections are the people’s elections.
Popular institutions are the people’s institutions. A popular
government is ‘the people’s government. And so, by contrast
with those forms of government in which the people have no
voice at all, and even in contrast with those forms in which they
have a partial voice, the phrase “ popular government,” or “ pop-
ular form of government,” gets a meaning which always points
out clearly a democracy, a republic, or a commonwealth. Our
government is a popular form of government, or a popular
government.
We happily know more about this kind of a government than
Mr. Blackstone did. Our national experiment, so wisely started
by our fathers, so adequate to every strain, has proved that a
popular form of government, one in which the sovereignty is
vested in the people, one in which the people are the rulers, is
not necessarily weak or perishable, nor illy ﬁtted to secure to the
governed the ends for which it was established. Every one who
has chosen to make himself acquainted with its history, and who
has not? has seen such a government grow in size, strength and
importance, in spite of the ﬁerce obstacles of wars without and
wars within. He has seen it acquire, populate, cement and give
law and order to vast regions it did not own at the start. He
has seen it rise from small and not very harmonious beginnings
16 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
till it has assumed the highest form of national life and con-
quered one of the ﬁrst seats in the great political system which
embraces all the civilized nations of the earth.
SOVEREIGNTY—Amid this splendid growth, these evi-
dences of inherent strength, these promises of durability, who
does not feel new pride in'our ﬁrst and greatest axiom, “The
sovereignty is in us, the people.” Would that this pride were,
strong enough to impress every citizen with the need of special
qualiﬁcation for his high office, for his is an ofﬁce—that of
sovereign—and one with broader meaning and deeper function
than that of the governor or president he helps to create.
In no country of the world does the word “ sovereignty,” as
attached to the individual, have so much signiﬁcance as in the
United States. It is not merely a claim or a boast, but it is an
‘inherent power which he may exercise on all proper occasions
and in accordance with his own free will, and which he ought‘ to
exercise if he expects to be content with the laws and those. who
execute them. Knowledge of this supreme endowment ought
to inspire every citizen with higher notions of manhood, ought to
‘ deepen his interest in the affairs of society and the State, ought
to make him feel that there is no education so important as that
which will teach him how best to turn the power he wields to
the account of himself and those about him. True, he is but
one sovereign among many, and he may feel that his voice is
weak, his identity lost; but let an attempt be made to rob him
of his endowment, and he will feel as if the loss were a mighty
one indeed, one which could not well be borne. He would
ﬁght against its loss, as if it were the dearest thing on earth to
him.
The true majesty and moving effect of individual sovereignty
are visible when it is united with that of other individuals all
along any line of political action. One soldier does not make
an army, nor one man a nation, but many soldiers and many
men. 50 sovereignty gets to be an imposing and effective force,
gets to be sovereignty indeed, when it is a thing resident in, or
bubbling forth from, a set of men, a society, a people, a nation.
In the individual it was a still small voice, in the nation it is
THE UNITED STATES; 17
Jove’s chariot thundering in the heavens and shaking the earth.*
Then, indeed, it means law, presidents and .governors, constitu-
tions, states, empires, and in an hour of great public grievance,'
or of incendiary partisan rage, it may mean the deﬁance of law,
the overthrow of officials, the smashing of constitutions, the
upheaval of states, the crashing of empires. It is a power for
evil as well as good, a source of danger as well as safety.
WHENCE SO VEREIGNTY SPRANG—In the after part of
this volume there will be many opportunities of learning how the
notions of popular liberty and the doctrines of popular sovereignty’
which are now a part of our national life were planted in our soil
and cultivated among our colonial fathers. But the lesson of
their importance to us cannot be fully learned, nor can their bear-
ing upon the rest of the world be completely realized till we con-
sider how many and what desperate battles they had to ﬁght in
the old world before they commanded any degree of respect. It
was not the part of any feudal government to recognize sover-
eignty as in the people. Yet there never'was a time when the
people did not feel that all sovereignty was in them. Conse-
quently all political history is marked here and there by volcanic
eruptions of popular will, by upheavals of the masses in, too often,
vain attempts to assert the power to rule themselves, which they
felt was God-given and inherent. The democracies that tossed
and writhed and tormented and spent themselves in very excess
of agony, were simply the boiling up through hard feudal surfaces 7
of that spirit which We now proudly claim and exercise as free-
men. The republics which gave a mouth to every Grecian, bred
in every Roman a sense of dignity, imparted a feeling of man-.
hood to every Venetian, taught England that the “divinity
which‘ hedges a king” was no more divine than that which
* Some writers prefer not to speak of sovereignty as in the ‘individuals They
only recognize sovereignty as something residing in and coming out of an aggregate
of individuals, a nation. Thus Brownson; “Sovereignty, under God, inheres in
the organic people, or the people as a republic.” It is only a question of when to
begin to call it sovereignty. As a source of pride to the individual citizen he might
as.well be made to feel that his exercise of the elective franchise 'is an evidence of
the sovereignty that is within him, as not. The water of each of an hundred springs
that make up the river is in the river, whatever you may say.
2
18 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
hedges a mere citizen, were all so many protests‘on the part of _
the people against the doctrine of potentates that power does not
“rise from the masses, but comes down to them through masters.
Rulers were always smarter than the uneducated, noisy, inco-
herent, careless masses. Hence democracies and republics were
short lived. A shrewd or unscrupulous ruler was more than a
match for brawling assembly, or a jealous and discordant set of
electors. The Doges of Venice literally ran away with the
power entrusted to them by the people, and royal diplomacy
manoeuvred England out of Cromwellian republicanism in ten
years time. In all these battles for sovereignty the masses were
at a decided disadvantage.‘ They were, in general, not educated.
If religious, their religion did not admit the freedom of con-
science. If freemen, the modern doctrine of personal and civil
liberty was not understood by them. If voters, the value of
sovereignty was not appreciated. But with the reformation came
a ﬂood of daylight upon the lowly. Conscience got loose and
shook itself rejoicingly, being free from fetters. Reading and
thinking got down to the bases of society, and new notions of
personal and civil liberty began to prevail. Subjects began to
feel that they were men with rights which even sovereigns must
respect, and most of all that they were a source of power which
‘even sovereigns could be made to fear. Great minds got to
writing about the sources of power, the responsibilities of
citizenship, the relation of rulers to the ruled, the nature of
liberty, the value of sovereignty, the duty of the freeman to as-
sert his rights. Parties or sects—you can as yet scarcely distin-
guish between the two—sprang up, some to ﬁght for their
religion through their politics, and some to ﬁght for their politics
through their religion. In England the Puritan got to be a
stubborn force, so did the Independent, and the Presbyterian,
and the Quaker, all discordant, yet all united, in so far as the
drift of their thought and inﬂuence was toward intellectual
moral and political ‘freedom, and the ultimate right of man to
choose his own rulers ‘and make his own laws. These were
brave souls and they clung to their convictions and indoctrinated
their fellows amid social ostracism and state persecution. Ham-
THE UNITED STATES. 19
pered on all sides by forms too hard to break through, over~
shadowed by power too well entrenched to be easily dislodged,
feeling that their doctrines were pervading, permanent and vital
enough to bear transplanting, and knowing that an open conti-
nent lay beyond the ocean, they were ripe for the experiment of
American colonization.
WE SHOULD PREPARE OURSEL VES.—The propriety
of, nay the necessity for, educating statesmen * is not doubted.
Yet here we are, old and young, all of us, statesmen by right,
and each endowed with a dignity and authority to which your
statesman in fact is willing to take off his hat. Nothing is so
pleasing and assuring as to see an ofﬁce-holder well qualiﬁed
for his ofﬁce. Yet we are all ofﬁce-holders, in that personal
sovereignty is within each man’s keeping. We go about our
work or pleasure with what may be called the highest ofﬁce, at
least the highest responsibility, in the land, hanging to our per-
sons, and inseparable from us. '
The citizen makes a terrible mistake, one which may any day
bring disaster to his country and himself, who supposes that he
can properly ﬁll his high ofﬁce, perform his full duty as sov-
ereign, without any previous thought or qualiﬁcation. He cannot
be a safe repository of power who does not know what power is,
and when and how to exercise it. One cannot be a good presi-
dent maker who has no idea of what a president is for, and what
a good one is like. The man who is ignorant of legislation or
the quality of a safe legislator is not ﬁt to choose a representa—
tive in congress or the general assembly. You could scarcely
expect a person without judgment to select a good judge for
you. While the principle that every man is a sovereign, or that
sovereignty resides in the people, is a glorious and inspiring one,
it would be most dangerous to our own peace and to the per-
* What is specially needed in statesmen is public spirit, intelligence, foresight,
broad views, manly feelings, wisdom, energy, resolution; and when statesmen with
these qualities are placed at the head of affairs, the state, if not already lost, can,
however far gone it may be, be recovered, restored, reinvigorated, advanced, and
private vice and corruption disappear in the splendor of public virtue—Browmon’:
American Republic.
20 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
petuity of the nation, if we were all as ignorant and brutish as
South Sea Islanders, or as indifferent as the free-footed Bedouins
of the desert. It is only a safe and tolerable principle here and
now because, as a rule, some kind of qualiﬁcation exists, or be-
cause, as a theory, sufﬁcient'qualiﬁcation is presumed; or, to
state it in other words, because the result of the ballot is sufﬁ-
ciently on the side of purity and intelligence to answer as a set-
off against an impure and ignorant ballot.
A CONTRACT WITH THE STATE—The ballot is the
legal means of giving expression to the will, or sovereignty, that
is within us. Ought there ever to be a doubt about its intelli-
gence and safety? Ought government, through and by means
of the ballot, to be a sort of political hit or miss game, a thing
to make one say, “Oh well, it is all wrong in this or that matter,
but we will trust to another turn of the wheel to correct it?”
We. ought not to forget that despotism, aristocracy, monarchy,
and every form of government which does not rank as popular,
ﬁnds a strong vindication in its distrust of the masses, and in its
doctrine that the sovereignty which comes up out of the people
is uncertain, gross, and unsafe. The answer to the claim that
the masses ought to govern themselves always was, “ Let them
prove that they are equal to the task.” In the face of all the
obstacles presented—their own ignorance as well as the superior
intelligence and adroitness of their masters—they generally failed
to prove it, and the laugh was on the side of the “powers that
be.” It was only when time had worked great changes in the
condition of the common people, and when they began to give
some proofs of their ability to master political situations, that the
power which emanated from them, the state or government, got
to be of any account. And now, under our form of government,
does there not exist a secret understanding, an implied contract,
a tacit pledge, between the state and the citizen, to the effect that
one shall do all he can to qualify himself for his responsibilities,
in turn for the protection and comfort the other affords? If
such contract does not exist, the citizen is none the less respon-
sible, and he must still face the question, “If ballots are even
yet barely safe because those which are qualiﬁed outnumber
THE UNITED STATES. 21
those which are not qualiﬁed, what might we not expect in the
shape of stronger government and better institutions, if all were
qualiﬁed P ” The obligation of every sovereign citizen to qualify
himself for the intelligent exercise of the power that is within
him is deep, impressive, awful. Does he realize it? *
HOW QUAL[FY?-—Whatever will make the citizen think
more seriously of his political obligations, whatever will enable
him to give truthful, safe, and telling expression to the sover-
eignty that is within him, is a schooling of no mean order.
Streams cannot rise higher than their source, creatures cannot
be superior to their creators, institutions cannot be better than
their supporters. Governments, laws, ofﬁcials are, in general, a
fair reﬂex of the ballots which make them’. Before they can be
raised to high and safe standards, we must rise to high and safe
standards of citizenship. We must never admit that because a
majority of us are qualiﬁed to exercise sovereignty, therefore
things are safe. Things never can be absolutely safe till all are
qualiﬁed. Our common schooling is a great help to us. But it
is not of that special kind which is calculated to acquaint us
with political situations, sharpen our wits as rulers, stimulate our
pride of citizenship. Few of us ever think about our duty to the
government till we are reminded of it by the alarum of a political
campaign. Then as a short cut toward qualifying ourselves, We
rush pellmell to school to the teachers who appear on the stump
and in a declamatory, off-hand way, attempt to prove to us all
kinds of impossibilities and demonstrate all undemonstrable
things. These very eloquent teachers are seldom clear, dispas-
sionate, or impartial. They may be mere creatures of prejudice
or ambition. As a rule they ‘rely more on the arts which cap- ‘
tivate than on the logic which persuades, more on the tricks
which deceive than on the facts which convince. Their appeals
*Our republic has been reared for immortality, if the work of man may aspire to
such title. It may, nevertheless, perish in an hour by the folly, corruption, or neg-
ligence of its only keepers, the people. Republics are created by the virtue, public
spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall when the wise are banished from
the public councils,.because they dare to be honest, and the proﬁigate are rewarded,
because they ﬂatter the people in order to betray them.—-Story on the Constitution.
2'2 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
. are to the passions and not to the solid judgments of men. The
most they want is votes, not as winged principles, but as some-
thing to be counted in one, two, three order for their favorite
candidate. There is but one class of scholar who is truly at
home in this ringing, jostling, exciting school. He is the one
who will not qualify himself in any other way, who _is fond of the
burly-burly, delights in brass bands and ear-splitting hurrahs,
loves the delirium of passion, and supports the ticket, no matter
who is on it or what principles it embodies“ Conviction goes
to the dogs with such an one, sovereignty is a Chinese gong,
the franchise a batch of ﬁre-works, and election day a gloriﬁca-
tion.
You will say, “ but better this school than none.” Assuredly.
We do not design to diminish its importance further than that is
effected by showing that it is not the best school, and should not
be the only one, in which to learn our duties as citizens, or to
get substantial notions of our high privileges. It is very
pleasant to hear speeches, delightful to be carried away by ora-
torical ﬂights and ﬁgures, gratifying to see an enemy’s scalp
raised by the keen knife of sarcasm, inspiring to be appealed to
in various pathetic ways, but it is all very much like going to a
theatre to dwell for a little time in the midst of sentiments and
passions. It is an intoxicating, short-lived schooling, which may
tide one over an emergency, but leaves the mind to as sad a re-
action as a drink of spirits does the body.
The best qualiﬁcation of the citizen is that which is always
going on. He may quicken it by the usual agencies of the cam-
paign, brush up, as it were, at each call to exercise his sover-
' eignty, but the solid, solemn work of preparation ought to begin
with the child and never end till death ends it. The course of
study cannot be mapped. Tastes vary, and time is not at the
command of all alike. But it is safe to say that all may learn,
and should, .what will make them prouder of the distinction of
sovereign citizen, what will enable them to handle, without dan~
ger to themselves or others, the sharp weapon of the ballot,
what will give them bigger and broader views of their country
and institutions, what will enlarge their manhood’and make them
THE UNITED STATES. 23
feel their importance as factors in further building and perpetu-
ating this vast temple of government, which is even now over-
shadowing all others and inﬂuencing all others for their good.
For the greater encouragement of the young, and for overcom-
ing the indifference of those of riper years, let this fact not es-
cape attention. The people are closer to their rulers and their
government now than ever before in its history. just as they
prepare themselves for the duty of personal rulers, they rise in im-
portance with ‘their political rulers. just as they' are able to
think accurately for themselves, formulate their thoughts suc-
cinctly, and defend them stoutly, in that proportion the political
ruler hearkens unto them and takes his cue from them. It is for
this reason that reform is twice as speedy now as it was twenty
years ago. The better informed, the stronger, the more resolute
the constituency, the surer it is of a prompt and certain echo
from its representative. And this is as it should be, for the
whole theory of sovereignty with us is, that power passes up-
ward from the people, never downward. So, ability to instruct
and judge should pass in the same direction. While the respon-
sibility of the people is fhus greater, the duty of the legislator is
simpler and easier.


PIONEER DISCOVERERS AND EXPLORERS.

BIRTH AND GROWTH OF THE COLONIES.
MARCH T0 INDEPENDENCE.
ACQUIRING OUR PUBLIC DOMAIN.
HE FIRST OWN ERS.—When America was discov-
ered the title to theisoil was in the Indian. He was
sovereign proprietor. He acknowledged no obedience,
a allegiance, nor subordination to any foreign nation. He
has never to this day yielded a jot or tit'tle of his original
right of dominion, except when he sold out voluntarily, or was
forced by arms into a treaty. His claim was precisely like that
of all civilized nations, a claim based on exclusive possession
and use for his purposes, for hunting, for trading, for subsistence.
If he had no ﬁelds, no ﬁxed towns, few of the things which
fasten other folks to one spot, it was nobody’s business. That
did not invalidate his claim in the least.
THE EUROPEAN T f T LE.——The discovery of America in
I492 brought across the ocean the doctrine that general title to
all the new lands and the right to govern them rested on the fact of
discovery. Perhaps it would be better to say, the discovery of
America was the’ date of the invention of this doctrine. The
legal doctrine of discovery was, that title to the soil was in the
discoveren provided the territory discovered were unoccupied,
uninhabited. Why was this doctrine twisted out'of all legal
shape, or so greatly enlarged? Because the Indian was a
heathen. The Christian thought of the time did not draw a line
_ between political and spiritual sovereignty. The right to con-
vert a heathen carried everything with it—right to govern him,
right to own his soil. In a word, he was, if unconverted, an
encumbrance, and it became a Christian duty and glory to con-
(25)
26 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
quer him and possess his d~omains.* This is what made the
broad claim of title by discovery defensible, or rather, it is what
reconciled it to the European mind, for no lawyer would ever
agree, Without fee in advance, to establish the righteousness of a
title by discovery to an unknown inhabited land, he the inhabitants
heathen or not. Imagine the King of the Cannibal Isles sailing
out and striking the, to him, unknown coast of America at San
Francisco, and, landing and planting his banners in the soil, tak-
ing possession and declaring the whole country his by right of
ﬁrst discovery. How many of us would quake at the thought
that we, heathen to the great king, would have to give up our
titles and pass under a new dynasty PT How many of us would
acquiesce in his bold claim, or do other than the Indian has
done—deny his right to soil and dominion, and ﬁght to the death
against it P
ARE OUR TITLES GOOD ?—In law, time is a great cura-
tive. We can at least plead that we ought not to be disturbed,
because lapse of time has come in to cure the defects of ‘our '
title by discovery. However indefensible in law or morals the
European title to our soil was, the then civilized nations stood
committed to it, and we are entitled to the excuse which this
general commitment furnishes. It was a policy erroneous and
despotic. But even such policy may lead to results which, after
a long time, ought not to be questioned or disturbed. Besides,
* It might be curious to inquire how far we are away from this doctrine now. Is
not the red man still in the road? Has not our national policy toward him always
savored too much of the policy of the pioneer, that because he is in the way and
his land is good, therefore it is right to drive him away and take it?
1- “ The truth is, the European nations paid not the slightest regard to the rights
of the native tribes. They treated them as mere barbarians and heathens, whom it
they were not at liberty to exterminate, they were entitled to deem as mere tempor-
ary occupants of the soil. They might convert them to Christianity, and, if they re-
fused conversion, they might drive them from the soil as unworthy to inhabit it.
They affected to be governed by the desire to promote the cause of Christianity, and
were aided in this ostensible object by the whole inﬂuence of the papal power. _
But their real object was to extend their own power, and increase their own wealth
by acquiring the treasures as well as the territory of the New World. Avarice and am-
bition were at the bottom of all their original enterprises,”=-Stwj/ on the Constz'tu'
' tion.
THE UNITED STATES. 27
the Indians were much dealt with outside of this policy. In
some instances it was modiﬁed by the sovereigns themselves in
' granting charters; in others by the proprietaries in acquiring
their lands; in others still by the actual settlers. These, in
a more ‘becoming spirit of humanity and with a view to having
their titles peaceable and perfect at the start, actually bought the
soil of the Indian, and left him free to enjoy his tribal form of government. It need not be assumed that any very clearly or
elegantly worded contracts were made, nor that deeds contain-
ing exact descriptions of the lands were given, nor even that
anything like fair prices were paid, according to our notions of
value, yet the fact that the Indian, accustomed to roam a con-
tinent, with no attachment to locality, and therefore with no idea
of an acre or its equivalent in cash, assented to the terms, gives
the transaction validity in law. . I
FIRST ENGLISH PATENT—What a grand rush there
was for discovery and possession as soon as land was known to
exist amid the waters which supposably stretched from West—
ern Europe to Eastern Asia! In this rush, and so far as We are
concerned, England got the lead. The Cabots, father and sons,
Bristol merchants in long commerce with the ﬁshermen of Iceland
who may have told of Greenland, ﬁrst discovered the continent
of America.* With a boldness second only to that of Colum-
bus, and a conﬁdence which almost compels us to think they
were familiar with Icelandic traditions, they went into the midst
of the unknown waters, bearing a patent from the politic. Henry
VII, one clause of which read: “ Empowering them to search
for islands, countries, provinces, or regions, hitherto unseen by
Christian people; to afﬁx the banners of England on any city,
island or continent they might ﬁnd, and, as vassals‘l” of the Eng-
lish crown, possess and occupy the territories that might be
discovered.” ‘ A
* We readily accept the Icelandic history—fit is certainly more than tradition—4hat
their people were in communication with the ﬁshing-grounds of Newfoundland and
the eastern coast of America centuries before Columbus sailed. But, so far. as
national or political results followed, we must speak of Cabot’s discovery as the ﬁrst.
'l'Observe the feudal word warm]. “ The ﬁrst maxim of feudal tenure (title) was
28 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
ENGLAND GETS A CONTfNENT—This clause is ‘in-
teresting as part of the most ancient American state paper in
England, and, further, it gave to England an entire continent.
Its date is March 5, I496. The Cabots struck the continent
in N. lat. 56°, Labrador, in June, 1497, fourteen months before
Columbus, on his third voyage, came in sight of the mainland
off the mouth of the Orinoco. You ask why England didn’t
hold the continent if she claimed by right of discovery. The
answer is she did not know she had one to hold. Again, when
she learhed that it was really a continent, and was anxious for a
title as against some other discoverer or occupant, she always
made bold to set up the one founded on this discovery. It
always served her when she was the stronger party and nothing
was wanting but a pretext to title. And just here it is well to
note that this whole matter of title by discovery underwent many
changes. Several nations set up claims to the continent because
each thought it had discovered it. Ignorant of its geography
and of the discoveries of others, each nation had to modify its
claims under certain circumstances. ,
FRENCH CLAIMS—Not knowing what they had struck,
the planting of the English banners on Labrador did not deter
other nations from joining in the hunt for possession. Nor did
a second voyage (I498), by Sebastian Cabot, which resulted in a
proﬁle of the coast from Newfoundland to Albemarle Sound.
The French came skirting up the coast * from North Carolina,
stopping at New York, at Newport, thence on to Nova Scotia,
striking the grand ﬁshing-grounds, a ﬁeld they never quit till
driven off two hundred and forty years afterwards (1763) by the
Englishﬁl“ Though tento twenty years later than the CabotsI
that all lands were originally granted by the sovereign and therefore held of the
crown. The grantee, who had only a use, according to the terms of the grant, was
called the feudatory or vassal (tenant).”——-Blarkst0ne, vol. ii., p. 53.
*The voyage of John Verrazzani, an Italian in the employ of Francis 1., of
France, in the “ Dolphin” (1524), reads like a novel. '
1- We use the modern names of these places for convenience. The French names,
as St. John, St. Lawrence, Cape Breton, are all early. '
jVVithin seven years of the discovery of the continent, the ﬁsheries of New-
foundland were known to the hardy mariners of Brittany and Normandy.’
Bancroﬂ,
THE UNITED STATES. 29
in‘asserting title, the French took a decided lead in discovery
and settlement in their St. Lawrence region, New France.
Champlain was anxious to found a state, and he backed up De
Monts, who had gotten a patent for the sovereignty of Acadia,
extending from Philadelphia to beyond Montreal (1603). It was
to be a Huguenot country, but the Jesuits came also. Though
they wrangled much, Champlain managed to hold the line of the
St. Lawrence for France, and the settlements there became the
source of that wonderful Jesuit movement beyond Niagara, out
the chain of the great lakes and down the Mississippi to the
gulf.*
SPANISH CLAIMS—For years ‘after 1492, Spain had been
working her way through the Caribbean Islands, and in 1512
struck Florida. Ponce de Leon ﬁrst saw this land on Easter
Sunday (Pasoua Florida). This meant a continent for Spain, as
much as the discovery of Labrador by the Cabots meant one
for England, though De Leon supposed it only an island. He
Was to have its government on the condition that he colonized
it. Spain did not trust to mere discovery so much as to actual
settlement. The natives fought the Spanish off, and wounded
De Leon unto death. Thirty years after along came De Soto,
an old friend of Pizarro, who desired to rival him in wealth and
Cortes in glory. He began his wonderful freebooting march to
the'Mississippi, beneath whose waters he found a gravefl \lVhat
was Florida? In Spanish imagination it‘ was everything from
the Gulf of Mexico to Newfoundland, and as far west as‘ the
“River of Palms” (Mississippi) or as land extended. Canada
was in the Spaniards Florida; so was Louisiana; and so every
intermediate mountain chain and waving prairie. The Missis-
sippi rose in Florida and emptied in Florida. Not a nation dis-
puted her claims so far as they embraced the Gulf coast.
* Cartier’s voyages ( I 527 to 1542) planted the French standard in all that in-
deﬁnite country of Norimbega. He built a fort at Quebec in 1541.
TNarvaez previously made a similar march to the “ River of Palms ” and on to
the Paciﬁc. The story of his exploits is too wild for belief. The Spanish under
Gomez had also skirted the coast to New England, calling the country The Land
of Gomez.
30 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
T HE R] VAL CLAIM/1N T S.——Here then were three rivals,
all claiming the same lands as discoverers. England claimed a
continent, or would have done so had she known it was a conti-
nent. France in mapping her New France claimed from Dela-
ware bay northward. Spain claimed for her Florida, or New
Spain, everything from the Gulf of Mexico to Newfoundland.
What a chance for future troubles! But as yet these claims
were so misty and vague as not to be worth ﬁghting about. In-
deed they did not serve even as a bar to other claims on the
ground of discovery by these same nations or by others, espe-
cially when a permanent settlement followed. Thus when Coligny
wanted (I 562) to establish a Huguenot colony and found a
Protestant French empire in America* he selected Florida as the
site, and calling it Carolina, after Charles IX. of France, gave it
a limit extending from St. Augustine to Port Royal entrance.
His ﬁrst colony failed (I 563). In I565 he tried another which -
brought a storm about French ears. Maddened at this audacious
attempt to set up a Protestant empire within her Catholic‘
domains, Spain drove the French colonists out and proclaiming
Philip II. monarch of all North America hastened to found St.
Augustine (I 565), the oldest town in the United States by forty
years. The ﬁghting period had now arrived, and home jealousies
and wars had as much to do with colonial disturbances as any-
thing else. England had broken away from Catholicism: why
shouldn't she be jealous of Spanish ascendency in'the New World?
The century, or thereabouts, since the discovery of America, had
ﬁred European rulers with a mania‘ for the enlargement of their
empires by discovery. The idea grew more and more popular
that titles by discovery, in order to be substantial, should be
backed by actual settlement. It was found that no mean trade
could be driven with the natives in the shape of furs, etc., and
that our coasts furnished favorable ﬁshing-grounds. The thrill-
ing stories of Spanish adventure, conquest and enrichment in
Peru and Mexico had gotten abroad and were ﬁlling men of
every nationality with dreams of El Dorados in all parts of the
* A disastrous attempt, under the special co-operation of Calvin himself, .had
been made to found a similar empire at Rio janeiro in BraziL—Soutbey’s Brazil.
THE UNITED STATES. 31
New World. Religious enthusiasm built imaginary abiding—
places in the wilderness for the faithful, away from persecution,
competition and all state interference. Humanitarians, philan-
thropists, political theorists, saw golden opportunity in the
American wilds for great reformed and reforming empires.
Bankrupt nobility pictured to itself a-renewal of estates and
titles amid our splendid virgin areas on a far larger and grander
scale than their fathers had ever heard of.
RALEIGH ’S SCHEME—Raleigh had been a pupil of
Coligny. He dreamed of an empire for England on the very
spot whence the Protestants of France-had been expelled. He
' therefore took up Coligny’s failure. Armed with a patent from
Queen Elizabeth (1584) he tried his experiment a little farther
north and under more favorable auspices. But failure awaited
him also. His abandoned “ City of Raleigh” on the barren
island of Roanoke (I 587) was two centuries later (1792), and by
solemn act of the legislature of North Carolina, revivedin its
capital “The City of Raleigh.” As Coligny’s scheme gave to
the Carolinas (the New France of the South) a name, so Raleigh's
gave to the indeﬁnite territory of his patent the name of Virginia,
after the virgin queen.*
FIRST COLONIAL CHAR T ER—Turning the century
(1600) England was better prepared than any other country for
adventure, or say permanent settlement, in North America. The
* This attempt of Raleigh to found a Huguenot colon)r under English auspices
as a set-off to Spanish Catholic inﬂuence on the South did more to spread a correct
idea of the soil, climate, inhabitants and resources of the new land than any other
thus far. Its historian, Hariot, was a keen observer. He observed the culture of
tobacco and accustomed himself to its use, after the Indian fashion. He studied
the maize crop and noted its productiveness. He also tried the potato with the
natives and found it very good food. The natives were treated as men, and the
chief, Manteo, was given a peerage, the ﬁrst in Anglo-American annals. It ought
not to escape attention that Raleigh’took possession of this Virginia country, so signal
a part of Spanish Florida, and at so late a date, by reason of discovery. He of
course knew of Coligny’s claim to the same for France. But France and England
could afford to pull together in the scheme of a Huguenot (Protestant) colony or
empire right down upon and overshadowing Catholic Florida. It was a long-headed,
deeply concocted scheme on the part of Raleigh and Elizabeth, and one that Eng-
land, or rather Protestantism, could afford to take much stock in.
32 POLITICAL HISTORY.
timid policy of King James I. (1603-1625) in throwing out of
employment the gallant seamen who had served under Elizabeth
left them no option but to engage in the quarrels of strangers- or
seek employment, wealth and fame in the new world. The
vague uncertain title of the ﬁrst discoverer could now be backed
up by actual settlement. That possession which was then as
much as even ten points of law could be brought into play. A
true colonial scheme could be developed and practised which
would not only reduce the wilderness to an inchoate govern-
meat, but anchor it safely at the foot of the throne.
Now see the hold this spirit of colonization had gotten in
England. The inﬂuential assigns of Raleigh’s patent, the
wealthy Gorges, governor .of Plymouth (Eng), the experienced
Gosnold who ﬁrst set English foot on Cape Cod (1602), the
enthusiastic Captain Smith, the persevering Hakluyt, historian
of all the early voyages, and towering above all, the Lord Chief
Justice himself, ‘Sir john Popham—these formed a coterie whose
plea “to deduce a colony into Virginia” james I. could not
resist. He granted them the ﬁrst colonial charter under which
the English were planted in America, April IO, 1606. Do not
forget the date: it is an important one, the beginning of many
real'things in connection with our government. Do not forget
the coterie. They were tenacious men, representative of Eng-
land’s wealth and inﬂuence at home and her adventure abroad, ,
and they or their assigns come up continually from this time on
to disturb future titles and worry future colonists. Do not fail
either to look a little into the charter itself, for its bearings on
our history and institutions are direct, and it shows in what
shape English monarchy ﬁrst fastened itself on our soil.
The charter gave twelve degrees, reaching from Cape Fear,
N. C., to Halifax, Nova Scot'ia (34° to 45° N. lat.), to two rival
companies, one of London, the other of towns in the west of
England.* The London Company (Southern Colony), which
*The ﬁrst goes, popularly, by the name of the London Company. As its portion
of the above grant was the southern part of Virginia and its settlement on the James
river, it is known to our history as the Southern Colony. The second company,
whose residents were mostly at Plymouth, is called, popularly, the Western Company,

QUEEN ELIZABETH.
34 POLITICAL HISTORY oF
alone succeeded, had right to occupy from 34° to 38°; that is,
from Cape Fear to the southern limit of Maryland. The Western
or Plymouth Company (Northern Colony) had right to occupy
from 41° to 45° ; that is, from say New York to Halifax. From
38° to 41° was open to both, with ‘right to the soil ﬁfty miles
north or south of any actual settlement they might make therein.*
The government was a Council in England appointed by the
king. A Local Council had charge of local affairs in the re-
spective colonies. The king reserved the right of supreme leg-
islative authority and , supervision. The emigrant and his
children should continue to be Englishmen. The original
grantees or patentees were to hold the lands and other rights by
the tenure of free and common socage, and not in capz'taj' The
patentees Could of course regrant their lands to actual col-
onists according to the tenures they held. The hard, impractic-
able features of the charter were that the emigrant had no elec-
tive franchise, no right of self-government.‘ The power was ﬁrst
or the Plymouth Company, and as their part of the grant was in the north of Vir-
ginia, z’. e., from New York to Halifax, it is known in our history as the Northern
Colony, but chieﬂy by its failures.
_ * “ The name of ‘ Virginia ’ was generally conﬁned to the Southern Colony, and
the name of ‘ Plymouth Company’ was assumed by the Northern Colony. From
the former the States south of the Potomac may be said to have had their origin, and
from the latter the States of New England.”—-Sz‘ory on the Constitution.
1' This is very important as marking a point of decided departure from the feudal
tenures based on military service, or tenures in capite. However rapidly the process
of undermining feudal institutions may have been going on, it must‘have been a
very bitter pill for a sovereign like King James to give such a signal recognition of
their decadence, for be it known his signature to this charter not only broke in on all
precedent for military (capite) tenure to land in America, but established the most
democratic tenure then known in England, tenure by “ free and common socage.”
This tenure existed only in Kent (Eng) under the title gavelkz'na', “given to all
the males alike.” Says Blackstone, “ It is probable the socage (plow service)
tenures were the relics of Saxon liberty, retained by such persons as had neither
forfeited them to the king nor been obliged to exchange their tenure for the more
honorable though more burdensome tenure of knight service. This is peculiarly re-
markable in the tenure which prevails in Kent, called gavelkind, which is ac-
knowledged to be a species of socage tenure, the preservation whereof inviolate
from the innovations of the Norman conqueror is a fact universally known, and
those who have thus preserved their liberties are said to hold in free and common
socage.”
THE UNITED STA'l Es. 35
in a" trading company composed of a select few, of which the
actual settler was not one; then in a Local Council, in which he
had no voice ; then in a Supreme Council at home, which could
never know him and could never have sympathy with his
rights; lastly in the king himself, who not only created and dis-
missed the Supreme Council at pleasure, but held the power of
making or revising their legislation. It was a truly wonderful
scheme, and one, in most respects, well calculated to tickle the
vanity of a weak prince. What wonder that, under it, the Local
Council got to be a pure aristocracy entirely independent of the
settlers, the people! What wonder that no element of popular
liberty found its way into the government of the colony when
its code of laws was completed and received kingly sanction!
And what wonder the parliament of England speedily raised the
question—a question which would not down until the American
revolution—of how far the king was a usurper of their powers
in assuming legislative authority abroad! Even the religion of
the colonist was, under this memorable instrument, to be that
of the Church of England. _
One may well say all this was a long way off from what kings
were afterwards taught to grant, and from that spirit of free
thought and action which now pervades our institutions. Under
such a charter and code permanent colonization at a distance
from home, and in a spot Where everything invited to freedom,
was impossible. Every effort to plant under it, or to make it
work for the good of emigrants, showed its imperfections in glar-
ing colors. The weeding and paring process began early.
ENGLAND’S PERMANENT FOOT HOLD.-—Under this
charter the London Company founded Jamestown, Va., May,
1607, one hundred and nine years after Cabot’s discovery of the
Continent, and forty-one after Spain had- settled Florida. As the
Puritan, destined for the Hudson, was blown upon Cape Cod, so
the three ships with the Virginia Colony were blown past
Raleigh’s old settlement at Roanoke, and into the waters of the
Chesapeake. One year would have settled the fate of James-
town, but for Captain Smith, who had fought for freedom in
Holland, roamed France for pleasure, visited Egypt for study,
36 POLITICAL HISTORY.
plunged into Mohammedan warfare for glory, escaped from Con-
stantinople to Russia for safety, and now entered as hero on a
drama the most exciting and thrilling of all. Even his ingenuity
in handling hostile natives, and his unbending will, stronger than
that of cowardly governor (Wingﬁeld and Ratcliffe) or famished,
rebellious emigrant, could not have saved the colony, but for an
amendment to the charter government which robbed the king of
the supreme legislative powers he had reserved and turned them
over to the company and its governors. This gave to Smith’s
genius a fuller rein. He made the gentlemen colonists work,
saying, “ He who would not work might not eat.” He entreated
the company to send “ more suitable persons for Virginia.” “I
entreat you,” he writes, “ rather send but thirty carpenters, hus-
bandmen, gardeners, ﬁshermen, blacksmiths, masons and diggers
up of trees’ roots, well provided, than a thousand of such as we
have.” Hopeless as his task seemed he held his control of the
unruly colonists till disabled by an accidental explosion of gun-
powder he was forced to go to England for treatment, without
reward of any kind but the applause ‘of conscience and the
world. He was the true father of Virginia, and, vastly more, the
pioneer who secured to the Saxon race its ﬁrst permanent foot-
hold within the borders of the United States. Virginia was a
fact, but as yet a limitless fact. And this it proved, and con-
tinued to prove, that just as the king was shorn of. his charter
powers, and just as the Home Council and the governors were
deprived of their arbitrary control, and the same passed over to
and began to be exercised by the people under the forms
of law, in that proportion the colony throve. America was
no place for restricted individual rights nor absolute foreign
authority.
TOBACCO, COTTON AND SLA VES.—The jamestown
colonist got to be an industrious man. It was a clear question of
the“ survival of the ﬁttest.” He grew tobacco and the cereals, and-
found both proﬁtable. The former became a staple and a cur-
rency. He was not satisﬁed with his farm title. It was amended
so as to make him secure. He clamored for representation.
This too he got. The ﬁrst colonial assembly met at jamestown,
TH.
,. I»!
.Ilht.)
“fl/it,
in?! (viii f I _
ifiM/ll I | El
l). (Id/ll! [AWN/I v\. I// VI

CAPTAIN JOHN SMI
\ ..
\.\\ 1:
\.\\ﬂ- ......E\st.w\v “
be?
A . . . .. .m... . gvél/ﬂﬂkﬁﬁ
. .. _ . . ....,.\.\.m\..~.....~.\\\.


s \
\

POCAHONTAS RESCUING CAPTAIN SMITH.
37
38 POLITICAL HISTORY oF
june, 1619. This was the dawn of'legislative liberty in America. .
They who had been dependent on the ﬁckle will of a governor
demanded a code of laws based on those of England. Such a
code came over in 1621. It was a form of government away
outside of the harsh and narrow provisions of the charter.
Under it the colony got a parliament, very like that of England.
Thenceforth Virginia was the Virginia of the colonists. It was
their country, and their country reached from North Carolina to
Halifax, and as far west as imagination chose to go. The king
was still king, and of a new empire, but of a people who had
gradually acquired rights they would never voluntarily part with.
He had a rival though. In 162 I the ﬁrst cotton-seed was planted
with success. The infant thus cradled grew into “King Cot-
ton.” Strange to say, only one year before, August, 1620, four-
teen months after the ﬁrst Virginia Assembly, four months be-
fore the pilgrims landed at Plymouth rock, more than a hundred
years after slavery had disappeared from England, six years after
the abolition of serfdom in France, a Dutch man-of-war entered
the james river and landed twenty negroes for sale. Unfortu-
nately the constitution and code of laws which were received by
the colony the next year had been prepared without knowledge
of this event, or they might have contained some clause prohibit-
ing this kind of commerce. As it was, the commerce grew and
the slave system got hold, in spite of a strong sentiment among
the‘better class of colonists against it, and in spite of a few feeble
colonial laws passed with a design to discourage it. By one of
those strange contradictions in human affairs, the colony which
had in fourteen years converted a despotic charter into a repre-
sentative form of government, and had actually become an
asylum of liberty,* became also the abode of hereditary bonds—
menil'
*The Virginia Colony had not as yet paid much attention to its religious code,
and even the heady Puritan could ﬁnd an asylum there. His presence was not inter-
dicted till the democratic revolution in England under Cromwell gave political im-
portance to religious sects. Then to tolerate a Puritan was to favor a member of a
republican party.
j-Negro slavery was certainly an offence against the better instincts of all the
colonies. Though all the earlier ones tolerated it, there was no lack of discourag-
THE UNITED STATES. 39
A ROYAL PROVINCE—King James got jealous of the
London Company. On the plea of mismanagement its charter
was cancelled. Virginia was free from a control which, while it
made a colony possible, had ever been an interference. Charles
I. (1625-1649), in accordance with his father’s intentions, would
regard it as a Royal Province, to be governed by himself, but
fortunately more with a view to securing a revenue from its
tobacco and other staples, than with a design to interfere seriously
with the political rights of the colonists. But up came the
question of boundary. Virginia had no limits but those in the
charter, and it was gone. There was, therefore, no Virginia for
the map. Only the settlement called Virginia remained, and
the best it could do was to claim the old charter limits, whether
the charter existed or not. It therefore crossed swords with
the Marylander who had come with his grant right into the
midst of the Virginia territory. But the ﬂurry soon passed
over. The fate of Charles I. was sealed. Virginia thought to
ﬁght Cromwell, but by capitulating got terms which were almost
equivalent to independence. Cromwell never bothered himself
about governors nor anything else outside of the mere question
of allegiance. So the colonists elected their own governors, and
the custom once established, it ever after prevailed. A grand
step toward popular independent government in the new world!
MARYLAND CHART ER—The mind of the Virginian was
not clear as to his country. Under the charter of 1606 his
domain was practically boundless to the north. Under an
amended charter he could claim to 41° (200 miles north of Old
Point Comfort), which was vaguely supposed to be the southern
limit of New England, or the southern boundary of the New
Netherlands. At any rate he would, now that he was pros-
perous and had ambitions, push his enterprises north of the
ing laws and regulations. The force of sentiment outside of themselves, especially
that sentiment born of traﬂ‘ic and cupidity, was stronger than the true and just col-
onial instinct, and hence ordinances discouraging slavery became dead letters. But
time would have corrected the errors of cupidity, all along the colonial line, had
it not happened that as long as the slave trafﬁc was active, the climate, staples and
commercial tastes of the Southern colonies permitted the introduction of the slave
element to such an extent that heroic action against the system became impolitic.
4O POLITICAL HISTORY.
Potomac and Susquehannah. But, alack l he was suddenly cut
off. Sir George Calvert had tried a Catholic settlement at
Avalon on the coasts of Newfoundland, but cold, a barren soil,
and French ﬁshermen, had driven him away. He would try
again in a more favorable clime. His inﬂuence with the king
(james I.) was great, and the canceling of the Virginia patents
had restored to the monarch his authority over the soil. The
French, the Dutch, the Swedes, were preparing to come. Why
shouldn’t Calvert have a slice of kindly soil for his experiment?
He got it, and evidently wrote his own charter.* It gave him a
clean slice 'of what was Virginia. Its bounds were the ocean,
the 40th parallel, the meridian through the fountain of the
Potomac, that river to its mouth, and a line from Watkin’s
Point to the ocean—almost the Maryland of to-day. Calvert’s
'(Lord Baltimore’s) province was a creation with a deﬁnite
boundary, the ﬁrst, it may be said, thus farfl’ and it was Mary-
land, after Maria, wife 'of Charles I. Lord Baltimore was a
Proprietary, that is, the country was his estate. He was
governor, subject to the provisions of the charter, which were
very liberal indeed, securing to the colonists representative
government from the start, and therein contrasting strongly with
the Virginia charter, granted to mere trading companies.
Christianity was by the charter made the law, but no preference
was given to any sect, and equality in religious rights not less
than in civil freedom, was assured. Sir George Calvert died
April 15, 1632, but the charter was conﬁrmed to his son,
Cecil, june 20, 1632. > As ‘has been noted, Virginia was
* “ The nature of the document itself, and concurrent opinion, leave no room to
doubt that it was penned by the ﬁrst Lord Baltimore himself, although it was ﬁnally
Issued to his son.”-—-Bancroﬂ, vol. i., 241.
T Ignorance of the geography of the interior left many of the early grants with-
out western limits. Some had the clause inserted “ and extending through to the
Paciﬁc,” or “extending from ocean to ocean.” But in general they were vague,
and the source of much future difficulty, as were those north and south boundaries
which so overlapped each other. The failure of the successive monarchs to under-
stand what their predecessors had done, the lapsing of so many grants by time or
oy non-user, the desire of each monarch to gratify his friends or to map a new
Colonial policy of his own, all these contributed to the confusion of charter bound-
aries.
\‘\\\_~_'.
3 3
”, 1,‘:-
’/”’n‘
1-
I '15.,‘ _
1-01,,‘ t3 \
44/0,’:
’-I \ ‘
Liz/l],
’ //
1- ‘n.-
\u
\
) \.\\\‘
‘ in!
*l
I, 1 I <
I‘ \
. t
N
h
"u
I
,52111
“v
-, , ,9
..__.{.I_ H
"I: .
'-
u
. *1
4 I,
1’)
/
. \‘gsv‘
\ \\;\\\\\\\\s‘;\
\~.\\q¢\ /, ‘I /
/ “ _ /
. I i ‘ 0 '1'! i‘l‘\ ~
- .p v ‘4.
mg,

CHARLES I. OF ENGLAND. 4
1
42 ‘ POLITICAL HISTORY OF
furious over this robbery of her domain. She at ﬁrst warred a
little about it, then carried her case to England, but the king’s
privy council told her to go home and cultivate amicable rela-
tions with her neighbor. Her wrath had'time to cool while the
boundary between her and Maryland was being adjusted. Cal-
vert knew quite well the folly of attempting a Catholic experi-
ment, no matter how liberal its provisions, so near the Virginia
settlement, and within its claimed limits, without ﬁrst securing
for it carefully determined boundaries. Virginia’s church was
the established church, which, liberal at ﬁrst, was nearly ripe for
that uncharitable statute which banished all non-conformists
and made their return a felony.
SETTLEMENT OF MAR YLAND.--March 27, I634,
Calvert founded his village of St. Mary’s, and his state. The
Ark and Dove bore his colony. He treated with the Indians
and bought their soil. Thus his possession was peaceable, ex-
cept that Clayborne of Virginia wanted to drive him away by
force.* The colonists stuck from the start, and, unlike those of
_Virginia, went to work. In six months St. Mary’s was ahead
of jamestown in its sixth yearqL In one year the people, not
liking Calvert’s Code, passed one of their own which, though it
did not go into effect, resulted in such modiﬁcations of Calvert’s
as they wished. The “religious freedom” of the charter took
as wide shape in the statutes as was then possible. It embraced
all Christians, but with the awful proviso that, “ Whatever per-
son shall blaspheme God or shall deny or reproach the Holy
Trinity, or any of the three persons thereof, shall be punished
with death.” Nowhere in the United States is religious opinion
now regarded as a proper subject for such a penalty or for any
penal enactment at all. We have seen how Virginia proﬁted by
the neglect of Cromwell, under the English Commonwealth.
* The native tribe had been punished by the Susquehannahs on the north, and
was just about to quit its seats on the Potomac, when Calvert came. He therefore
was able to drive a good bargain with them, and to quiet his title with a few pres-
ents of clothes, axes, hoes, knives, etc.
1' “ Within six months it (the Maryland colony) had advanced more than Virginia
' had done in as many years.”-—Bancrcy’t, vol. i. , p. 247.
THE UNITED ‘STATES. 43
New England did the same. But Maryland went through the
ﬁres of angry disputation. With the king gone, where was the
Proprietary who held from and under him? “Gone too,” said
Virginia. “ Gone too,” said Cromwell, though he was going to
trust to Calvert’s good sense to manage things. But Virginia,
through the ambitious Clayborne, got over into Maryland, and
under cover of a commission actually ran away with the
government. Maryland had invited Puritans. _ They were
strong in Anne Arundel, and were Cromwellian republicans.
Calvert was shrewd enough to save his charter, but when he
went to reduce the Puritans he was whipped and his agent,
Stone, was imprisoned. Clayborne could reduce neither Catho-
lics nor Puritans. Thus matters stood for years, till the people
voted themselves a lawful assembly, without dependence on
other power in the province, and enacted compromise laws,
which Virginia ultimately assented to, and which both Puritan
and Catholic could respect. Thus Maryland like Virginia
was, at the restoration of Charles II. (1660), in full possession
of liberty based on the sovereignty'of the people, and like
Virginia it had so nearly completed its political institutions
that not much further progress was made toward freedom and
independence till the period of ﬁnal separation from England
(1776)- ~
THE PLYMOUTH COUNCIL—ewe must now go back a
little in time and look northward. The Virginia charter of I606
incorporated two monstrous companies, the London Company
(Southern colony), and Western or Plymouth Company (‘North-
ern colony). We have seen how the London Company suc-
ceeded at Jamestown, and how it was shorn of its rights in Vir-
ginia. What did the Western or Plymouth Company do with
its splendid grant of lands (in Virginia remember) between New
York and Labrador, 41° to 45°, and its magniﬁcent privileges P
Under Popham himself it settled at St. George'on the Kennebec
(I607). But Popham died and the colony failed.* Inspired
* The Maine historians make much of this settlement, not only as ante-dating all
others in Northern Virginia or New.England, but as going to show the directness
of the Maine title from the Virginia charter of 1606, and therefore the wrongfulness
44 ' POLITICAL HISTORY OF
anew by Smith, the Virginia hero, who had (1614) scoured the
coast from the Penobscot to Cape Cod and named the country
New England, another trial was made, but the colony never
landed. Still Smith’s enthusiasm was all pervading. Anew
and independent charter was sought. for the company. This set
the Londoners and Westerlings to ﬁghting. But clashing in-
terests could not stay results. Out of the conﬂicting claims
came a charter to forty of the king’s favorites, many of them
members of both the old competing companies, and. the best
men in them. It was one of the most sweeping papers which
ever bore royal signature. Its date was Nov. 3d, 1620, and it
incorporated “The council established at Plymouth (England)
for the planting, ruling, ordering and governing of New Eng-
land, in America.” '
NATURE OF T HTS CHART ER—Note ﬁrst the size of the
territory it covered, and how it wiped out the entire ﬁeld given
to both the London and Western Companies in the charter of
1606, also how it silenced forever the legal claim of Virginia (not
the popular claim) to her domain north of 40°. It extended in
breadth from 40° to 48° north- latitude, and from the Atlantic to
the Paciﬁc; that is, it embraced nearly all the inhabitable British
possessions of to-dayj‘< all New England, New York, more than
half of New Jersey, nearly all Pennsylvania, and the mighty
sweep westward of all these States. So grand an empire had
never been given away by a single stroke of the pen. But more,
and worse, the charter gave to forty men the soil, the sole power
of legislation, the selection of all ofﬁcers, the formation of a gov—
ernment, and powers over commerce as arbitrary as those con-
of the claim which Massachusetts subsequently made good. Had the Kennebec
colony stuck, they’ would have much better ground for their position; or had not the
character of titles shifted. Even at this early date the principle was abroad that a
title conﬁrmed by actual settlement was better than one with no such substantial
backing.
* It paid no attention to the French possession of New France, which was
already permanently occupied at Port Royal, Quebec, and many other places
along the St. Lawrence. The thought evidently was to rely on the old Cabot
title by discovery, claim the continent, and drive off settlers of other nationalities if
necessary.
THE UNITED STATES. 45
veyed to the Cabots by Henry VII., in “that oldest American
State paper in England.” No regard was shown for the liberty
of a single colonist. Everything was left to the council at Ply-
mouth. It was too big a monopoly to be of any use. Parlia—
ment rose in angry question of the king’s right to thus fritter
away the public domain. France laughed at the thought of thus
appropriating her lands, in which settlements had existed fora
score of years. The patentees fell to furious wrangling about
their respective privileges, and while the confusion was at its
height something far-reaching and wonderful took place.
FIRS T PUR] TAN AD VEN T.—The Reformation had made
possible the Puritan and Pilgrim, the man who wanted, and was
bound to have—for himself—religious and political liberty, at
whatever cost. When he imbibed Genevan Calvinism he drank
in at the same time the spirit of the Genevan republic. This
was the ferment which was working in feudal England when
Henry VIII. cut off the political horns of the pope, and which
came to the surface when Edward VI. permitted the Protestant
sects to show their heads without danger from the block. One
of these sects, Cranmer’s, wanted mild reforms. This one be—
came the Church of England. The other would have no cere-
mony not enjoined by the word of God, no divine right of
bishops, no inequality of clergy, no ﬁxed rule of worship or in-
terpretation appointed by parliament, hierarchy or king. This
was Puritanism, pure and undeﬁled, and it had the sanction of
Martyr, Calvin, Hooper and Rogers‘. Under Mary, the Puritan,
as well as the Episcopalian, had to leave England, if he would
talk and act his convictions. He went to Amsterdam, Leyden,
Frankfort, Geneva, to every asylum on the continent, and he!
learned much. When he came back under Elizabeth he was no‘
longer a monarchist, but wanted a state of his own, one in which
he had a personal voice; therefore he was a politician,* and now
doubly dangerous and doubly to be despised. The hard meas-
ure of Elizabeth to exile or hang all who should be absent from
* Even the English church ‘charged them with seeking a popular state; and
Elizabeth declared they were more perilous than the Romanists. The Romanists
were for monarchy, and Elizabeth did not despise them on that account.
46 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
the English service for a month sent the Puritan abroad again,
and especially the stiffer-necked branch called Independent or
Separatist. The more politic remained to make Elizabeth
ashamed of her hanging of Barrow and Greenwood, and to teach
her that the spirit of liberty was sufﬁciently abroad to endanger
the chancesiof her successor to the throne if she carried on in
too high-handed a manner.*
Elizabeth, “ dead and forgotten in four days,” was succeeded
by james I., a most cowardly sprig of royalty, who was a Puritan
in Scotland, but who was no sooner over the border than
he couldn’t distinguish between the interests of the English
church and his own political prerogatives. “ No bishop, no
king” was his inspiration, and the Puritan was more a “ viper”
than ever, even if the king was a Protestant. He would “ harry
them all out of the kingdom, or, better, hang them, if they did not
conform,” and then when the Pilgrim wanted to go he had to
escape. Wherever he went in Holland or on the continent this
was true of him: he was industrious, nearly always a farmer or
tradesman, frugal, patient, pious, shrewd, liberty-loving, and
though a Pilgrim, attached to his nationality. He was not con-
tent in Holland, but, like others, began to dream of a colony in
the wilderness which should augment the king’s realm, give him
the government of his native land without its hardships, and thus
secure him the liberty he wanted. Whom should he consult?
It was 1617, and the London Company which had given life to
Virginia was yet in existence and claiming everything north of
North Carolina. It therefore was consulted, and would have
responded favorably but for bickerings. The king was petitioned
for a charter. He promised nothing, but gave out the impres-
sion that if the Puritan would only betake himself to America
and there behave himself he would be let alone. That was
something; perhaps all he had a right to expect. Then he went
back to the London Company, which granted a patent, but being
made in the name of one who failed to accompany the Pilgrim
expedition it was of no use. There was nothing left but the
O
* “ The precious spark of liberty had been kindled and preserved by the Puritans
alone.”-—-Carte’s England, iii., 707.
THE UNITED STATES. 47
king’s promise of neglect. With this for a charter the “ Speed-
well” (60 tons) and “ Mayﬂower ” (120 tons) were equipped for
the voyage. A solemn fast (the original of the American thanks-
' giving), and the Leyden Pilgrims sailed for Southampton.
There the English faithful came aboard, and the two ships dared
the ocean voyage. But the “ Speedwell ” gave out, and the two
ships put back to Plymouth, where the rotten one was dismissed.
A hundred souls, men, women and children,"< crowded into the
“ Mayﬂower,” and on the 6th of September, 1620, the ship was
off again, off for the Hudson. Bad navigation or storms brought
the Pilgrim boat to the bleak coast of Cape Cod, Nov. 9, I620,
thirteen years after the founding of Jamestown, and less than
two months after the signing of the wonderful charter of the
Plymouth Council, above mentioned. After a period of pro-
specting, on Monday, Dec. I I (say Dec. 22 new style), 1,620, a
landing was effected at Plymouth rock, and actual New Eng-
land had a beginning. The colony was that of Plymouth,
whence they had sailed.
The government of the PilgrimqL framed in the cabin of the
“Mayﬂower,” provided for a “proper democracy” in the Colony
of Northern Virginia, based on religious and political rights. It
promised loyalty to the Crown, which was its bid to be let alone.
The Pilgrim weathered two years of cold, barrenness, andiadver-
sity which would have broken up any colony but a Pilgrim
colony. His tenacity, industry, thrift, morals, family, organizing
power, memory of wrongs, and intense love of freedom, gave him
a foothold in spite of cheerless climate and unproductive soil.
He placated the Indians by treaty, raised corn, drove a brisk
trade, started his “little democracy,” worshipped as he wished,
partitioned his lands. Were his titles good P The Indians had
* The pilgrim brought his family along. The Virginian came without wife or
child. Smith’s prayer was for farmers, mechanics, and men with families. Till
such came colonization was mere adventure.
1- “ Puritan ” and “ Pilgrim” are fairly interchangeable. The latter was the former
in'exile, before he crossed the Atlantic. Not all Puritans were Separatists and In-
dependents. In general the Puritans were more diplomatic than the Pilgrims.
Puritanism covers both very well.
48 POLITICAL HISTORY.
said, “ Come; ” that was as good as a purchase. The principles
of English law, and natural justice, said they were good. So the
Pilgrim was secure. He struck deep in his own barren soil and
branched out to the Connecticut, to Cape Ann, and to the Ken- -
nebec. - .
PL YMO U T H C O UN C[L.—The shrewd Pilgrim heard of the
wonderful grant to the Plymouth Council and knew it embraced
his Plymouth. He worked into the good graces of the Council
through the inﬂuence of Gorges and got a sub-patent. This
attempt of the great Council to portion its powers and lands
again brought up the grave question in parliament of how far
the king had made a fool of himself in parting with so much
territory and power without parliamentary sanction. The Coun-
cil, monopolists as they were called, and the king were pitted
against the parliament and such level-headed lawyers as Sir
Edward Coke, who wanted the power of the Council broken and
a free opportunity given to colonize the rest of New England.
The Council, forced partly to the wall, determined to make the
best of a bad bargain by breaking up its immense domain. There
was a scramble for corporation patents. Mason got a patent for
the lands between the Salem river and the farthest head of the
Merrimac (I621). Gorges and Mason took a patent for Laconia,
the whole country between the sea, the St. Lawrence, the Mer-
rimac and Kennebec, and the plantations on the Piscataqua, as
well as the towns of Portsmouth and Dover came into being,
say 1623. Mason got a second patent (1629) for the country
between the Merrimac and Piscataqua, which was afterwards
known as the New Hampshire patent, and so the business ran
into interminable confusion and endless law-suits. The omnip-
otent Council of Plymouth was fast frittering away its lands,
inﬂuence and prerogatives.
SECOND PURITAN AD VENT—The Puritan at home
chafed under the constraints of English law and the severities
of the English church. Minister ‘White, of Dorchester, though
not a Separatist, would lead a colony of the faithful across the
waters. Despite his puritanism, he formed a company, which
bought of the expiring Plymouth Council a belt of land extend‘

_ ,
Max
A ,
.w
.21
PLYMOUTH ROCK.
50 ' POLITICAL HISTORY OF
ing from the Atlantic to the Paciﬁc, and from three miles south
of the river Charles and Massachusetts bay to three miles north
of every part of the river Merrimac. This was a strong com-
pany in men, for it included such as Sir Henry Roswell, Sir
John Young, Thomas Southcoat, john Humphrey, john Endicot,
Simon Whetcomb, and afterwards Winthrop, Dudley, johnson,
Pynchon, Eaton, Saltonstall, and Bellingham, all names well
known in colonial history. Endicot, the sternest kind of a Pur-
itan, was selected to begin the work of establishing a plantation
of “ the best'of their countrymen” on the shores of New Eng-
land ‘ and in safe seclusion, where the corruptions of human
superstition might never invade. Not trusting to this patent
from the Council, for it was in contravention of half a dozen
Others, it _was conﬁrmed by a charter from Charles I., and “The
Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in'New Eng-
land” was’ on itsfeet. Its date is March_4, 1629. The king
was evidently mad when he signed it. He had made up his
mind to govern his foreign territory, or have it governed, as he
pleased and without the aid of parliament. So, the provisions
of the charter were not unlike those of Virginia, not a whit more
liberal as to the rights of the emigrant, equally as hard and close
as to the powers of the corporation, which had even the right to
elect its own governors. As in Virginia, “ the blessed boon of
freedom” for’ the Colonist, the right to local self-government,
was to come about over the wreck of corporation codes and
amid the ruin of original charter claims.
MASSACHUSETTS COLON Y.-—-Under the auspices of
this Company of Massachusetts Bay, the Puritans struck Salem,
but Charlestown got a few of the new-comers, and so ‘did the vil-
lage of Boston, soon to become the capital. These Puritans
came full of ‘ notions of a church wherein they might worship
after their liking, and with no,-or very narrow, notions of a po-
litical state. But they were shrewd and business-like. The
thought of being under a company whose members resided at a
distance was not pleasant. An original idea struck them. Why
not pick the whole company up and carry it across the waters P
It could execute the provisions of the charter better on the spot
THE UNITED STATES. 51
than 3,000 miles away. That is just what was done, and in a
twinkling it changed a commercial corporation into an inde-
pendent provincial government. Governors, deputy governors,
members of the company, and all interested became colonists—
a happy Puritan band intent on their religion and church, but
wide awake as to their political freedom and all local and ma-
terial interests. They held in their own hands the key to their
religious asylum, and unceremoniously locked the doors against
all enemies to its harmony and safety. Winthrop, the aristo-
cratic, pious, conforming, discreet Winthrop, came over as -
governor. The hard trials and disappointments of colonists,
. especially on 'a shore so bleak, passed, the community settled
down to an “assembly of all the freemen of the colony,” at
Boston. Their ﬁrst effort was a sort of elective aristocracy.
Their second, the next year, 16.31, was a sort of commonwealth
of the chosen people in covenant with God—a theocracy, if you
please. No man was admitted to the freedom of the body politic
unless he was a member of some of the Puritan churches. But
in all things their government was representative. That was a
great point. The colony was politic. It encouraged peaceful
barter with the Indians. It sent messengers of peace to the
Pilgrims, and to all former colonists. It traded with the Dutch
on the Hudson. It invited and got large accessions of colonists
from England, the very best men there, such as Cotton, and
Hooker, teachers and thinkers at home, the ﬁttest material for
preachers, governors, and long-headed diplomatists abroad.
When the ministers would hold too hard to the theocratic idea,
the freemen inquired more deeply into their liberties and privi-
leges, demanded annual elections, introduced the ballot-box,
instead of the old-fashioned show of hands, got to be as noisy
and self-assertive as the modern politician. With the exception
of a limited suffrage, the democracy of Massachusetts was as
perfect then as now. Unfortunately the suffrage was limited
only to the faithful. Hence the split with Roger Williams and
his expulsion as an heretical fellow who taught that “ The civil -
magistrate should restrain crime, but never control opinion;
should punish guilt, but never violate the freedom ‘of the soul.”
52 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
This doctrine would blot out the felony if non-conformity,
would repeal every law compelling attendance on public worship,
would give protection to every form of religious faith, would
make every freeman a voter whether Puritan or not, would, in a
word, smash the whole Puritan fabric. And then he had com-
mitted other offense by writing an article in which he argued
that an English patent could not invalidate the rights of the
Indian to the soil. This was very like treason against the charter
of the colony. The very wise Bradford thought Williams crazy.
' All in all, he had to go, this ‘ﬁrst person in Christendom to assert
fully the doctrine of freedom of conscience, the equality of opin--l
ions before the law, and this defender of them even in advance
of the immortal John Milton and Jeremy Taylor. And his going
meant what P
THE BIRTH OF RH ODE ISLAND.——Williams stopped
at Seekonk, but that was within the Plymouth patent. -He
pushed on to a spot where patents would not interfere, and hav-
ing found it he called it Providence (1636). A deed from
Miantonomoh quieted his title as to the Indians. His govern-
ment was a pure democracy. Williams gave all power and lands
to the people, and they decided everything in their conventions.
A magistracy, executive ofﬁcers, governors, were things of an
after time.
CONNECTICUT TAKES SHAPE—The shrewd Puritan
would head off the Dutch who were creeping toward the valley
of the Connecticut. The soil was in the Earl of Warwick, as
proprietary, under a grant from the Council of New England, or
rather, in Lord Say and Seal, Lord Brooke and John Hampden,
as his assigns. But before they could colonize it the people of
New Plymouth had built a trading-house at Windsor, and soon
had settlements at Hartford, Windsor and Wethersﬁeld. To the
Puritans the valley of the Connecticut was indeed a new Hesperia.
Thither they marched in no limited numbers under the lead of
such as Hooker and others—emigrants from the most valued
citizens, the earliest settlers, and oldest churches of Massachu-
setts Bay. The bloodthirsty Pequods could not intimidate them
nor stay their westward march, but went down before it even to
THE UNITED STATES. _ 53
the last of their tribe. The ‘Puritan was a soldier as well as
preacher. At New Haven, too; an independent Puritan colony
sprang up with Davenport as pastor and Theophilus Eaton as
governor, for twenty years (1638), with no statute-book but the
Bible, and no freemen but the elect.
UNIT COLONfES—Passing the long legal ﬁght be-
tween the old Plymouth, Council and the Company of Massa-
chusetts Bay, which brought Puritanism under the suspicion of
aiming more at a distinct political sovereignty than at simply a
church of its own, the time had come for closer co-operation
among the New England colonists. At least this was the Mas-
sachusetts thought, though it was doubtless suggested as much
by her desire to extend her power and inﬂuence as anything else.
The ﬁrst move was on New Hampshire, which we have seen
had existence under the Mason grants. She readily accepted
the jurisdiction of the stronger colony, not doubting that a strict
construction of her charter gave Massachusetts a valid claim on '
her territory, and wishing to avoid the disputes which were sure
to follow refusal. The Pequod wars, and fears of the Dutch on
the south, made it the policy of the Connecticut and New Haven
governments to seek terms of union.
The Indian tribes of Narragansett wanted the protection of
Massachusetts, so they granted to her their Rhode Island. But
Williams, who had gone to England to get a charter, returned
with it (1644) in time to save his little state from absorption.
Down in Maine, Rigby, purchaser of the Lygonia patent, and
the assigns of Gorges, were in bitter legal warfare about their
right to own and govern. They agreed to refer their disputes to
Massachusetts as umpire. The shrewd umpire decided that
neither party was right, and told them to go home and live at
peace. This was impossible, and the umpire knew it, but it knew
also that the plum, not yet rip-e enough for the plucking, would
be as soon as the disputes had impoverished both parties. An
appeal was had to England, but she ‘took no stock in the contro-
versy. Then Massachusetts offered mediation. The role of
King Stork was repeated. Unfolding her own charter and point-
ing to its date, which was prior to that in the patentsof either
54 POLITICAL HISTORY.
of the disputants, and pointing again to her boundary line, three
miles north of any point on the Merrimac, she politely informed
the Maine folks that they had all along been shearing goats, and
that the territory was hers at any rate, which claim she made
good. Thus did Massachusetts extend her territory to Casco
Bay, and there was such a thing as the “United Colonies of
New England.” *
A GENERAL ADVANCE—All this colonial growth and
consolidation made free local legislation more, desirable, and the
interference of parliament more intolerable. The principle was
echoed from Virginia to the Kennebec, that the‘ colonies were
entitled to their own parliaments and legislatures. Royalty was
pitiably situated, for kings did not wish to go back on their
grants and their claim to give their soil to whom they pleased, to
be governed as they prescribed. This was the three—sided ﬁght,
now fully on, and not to be determined till the American Revo-
lution settled it. During the time of Cromwell (1648-1659) the
northern colonies, being republican in spirit, gained a more solid
footing, and made great progress. As the issue of Puritanism
was popular sovereignty, Cromwell was pleased with the New
England situation. “ He that prays best will ﬁght best,” was his
judgment, and he did not doubt the ability of the Puritan to
take care of himself, without a king at the helm in England.
FREAKS OE CHARLES ][.—The restoration of royalty
in England (1660) was a period of apprehension in Colonial
America. King Charles II. (1660—168 5) had no respect for ac-
quired rights on this side the Atlantic, and none for the acts of
his royal predecessors. He would be original or nothing, would
tear everything to pieces in order to enjoy confusion or the
pleasure of reconstruction. His freaks in upsetting old colonial
lines and titles astonished the world. Fortunately their very
* “ The ﬁrst conception of an American union entertained by the founders of New
England was to join in political bonds only those colonies in which the people
were of a similar way of thinking in theology, when, in the spirit of a theocracy,
they aimed to form a Christian state in the bosom of the church. This was em~
bodied in the New England Confederacy (1643-1684). Its basis was not broad
enough to embrace the whole of this territory, or sufﬁciently just to include all its
population."--Frot/zz'nglzam’s Rise qf the Republic. -
a‘
. 3 .
:35 kc _
0.3 .t i . . t
\
\\\\9 ~ \\\\\\\.\\
\K
: \\\.\.\\\\\\\\.\\
~ , . 1/.
Lwz/d/M

'1!’ i .
'xria‘r’"
,0’!
OLIVER CROMWELL.
55
56 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
wildness defeated their aim in many instances, and averted the
confusion which would otherwise have attended the king’s folly.
In other instances, some of the colonies got what they had never
been able to get.
Winthrop got a splendid charter—in utter disregard of all for-
mer grants—for Connecticut (I662), which embraced both the
Hartford and New Haven colonies, and extended from the Nar- _
ragansett River to the Paciﬁc Ocean, and the beauty of it was, it
gave to the colonists unqualiﬁed power to govern themselves.
Unwittingly, the king and Clarendon had set up a democracy
where they only intended to create a close corporation.
Rhode Island was favored with a new charter (1663) almost as
liberal as the old. The little State could now defy Massachu-
setts, who had denied her right to separate existence.
For Maryland the restoration meant the restoration of its pro-
prietary to all his charter rights and privileges.
Virginia, through the faithless Sir William Berkley, was. dis-
membered by lavish grants to the king’s courtiers. , i ._
New Hampshire and Maine were metamorphosed, by reviving
old proprietary rights therein, with aview of selling them to the
Duke of Monmouth. .
The country from Connecticut River ‘to Delaware Bay was
(I664), in spite of the‘Dutch possessions and the charter just
given to Winthrop, granted to the Duke of York; so was part
of Maine. Acadia was given back to France. __ ‘
Thus there ‘was disturbance 'all along the coast~line, and. the
ingenuity of the young governments was taxed to theuttermost
to bring order out of confusion, and save their identities, where
it was at all possible. _ I
‘ Massachusetts wanted her charter conﬁrmed by the new king.
A new one was granted which was not satisfactory, and the
Puritans got so stiff about it as to throw them open to the sus-
picion of wishing to set up an- independent nation. Had ‘Claren-
don, the king’s prime minister, lived, there is no telling what the
hostility of the throne to the attitude the Puritan was forced to
assume would have led to. There must have been war, disas-
trous to the colonists, for they never talked bolder, though their
\-
THE UNITED STATES. 57
strength was .not equal to independence as yet. Clarendon gone,
the king and parliament had enough on their hands for a time
i with home affairs, and during this happy neglect the colonists
had opportunity to test their coherence and ﬁghting qualities by
defending themselves against that grand old Indian chieftain
King Philip (1676). .
SMASHING AND PA T CH[NG.—When Charles was
about to turn his theft of Maine and New Hampshire over to
the worthless Duke of Monmouth, Massachusetts got possession
of the Gorges claims, paying $6,000 therefor, and thus threw
another obstacle in the king’s way. After this, Maine was given
a separate government and ruled as a province of Massachu-
setts (1680)_.* New Hampshire was not so easily quieted. The
Mason claim proved worthless. Therefore‘ Massachusetts lost
her hold, and New Hampshire was organized into a royal
province, July 24, 1679, the ﬁrst ever established in New Eng-
land. It was a terrible experiment. The king’s governor,
Cranﬁeld, would rule in accordance with English law and cus-
tom, and the colonists would have their local legislature. The
contention went on till Cranﬁeld withdrew in despair from those
“ unreasonable people” 1684).
Meanwhile the stiff-neckedPuritans of Massachusetts had re-
newed their battle for sovereignty. The king attacked their
charter. It must go, and go it did June 18, 1684. There was
now no bar between the colony and the will of the English
sovereign. Was property secure? Was religion in danger? The
outlook was gloomy in the extreme.
DAWN OF NORTH CAROLINA—Turn from the cold,
sterile North to the sunny, fertile South, and to that part of it
over which De Soto roamed at will, in which Coligny failed to
plant his Huguenots, and Raleigh to carry out his‘designs.
Here the freakish King Charles II. had enriched courtiers, like
Clarendon, Monk, Lord Craven, Lord Ashley Cooper, Lord
John Berkley, hisbrother, Sir William Berkley, Governor of
* There were three titles in Maine at this time. (1) French, from the St. Croix
to the Penobscot. (2) The Duke of York’s, between the Penobscot and the Kenne-
bec. (3) Massachusetts’, between the Kennebec and Piscataqua.‘
58 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
Virginia, and Sir George Cartaret, by giving them, as proprie-
taries, the Carolina country. It was not now (1660) entirely
'unpeopled. There were Puritans all around Cape Fear and Vir-
ginians in Southern Virginia at Albemarle Sound, that is to say,
in North Carolina; and it was to these Albemarle folks that
Berkley (of Virginia) sent William Drummond, a Scotch Pres-
byterian, as governor, with authority to institute a government
which should include “ an Assembly of the people and guarantee
liberty of conscience.” This foothold was not enough for
Clarendon and his associates, who dreamed of greater wealth
and power in this goodly country. A new charter was obtained
which, in deﬁance of both Spain and Virginia, granted all the
land between the Atlantic and Paciﬁc, and between 29° and 36°
30’ N. lat.; that is, all North and South Carolina, Georgia, Ten-
nessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, much of
Florida and Missouri, nearly all of Texas and a portion of Mex-
ico. In this boundless domain—an empire was evidently in-
tended-'-every favor. was extended to the proprietaries. To
Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftsbury, was entrusted the work of
framing a constitution.‘ He was an aristocrat, a skeptic and a
scholar, and he and Locke, the philosopher, put their heads
together. The result was that stupendous Carolina constitution
which has ever since been a wonder to theorists and an object
of praise or derision by statesmen. It created a nobility, be-
friended the slave system, limited the elective franchise to free-
holders of ﬁfty acres, partitioned the land into counties, one-ﬁfth
for the proprietaries, one-ﬁfth for the nobility, three—ﬁfths for the
people, beyond whose reach lay the executive, the judicial and
even the legislative power. The Church of England was to be
the national religion, though other religions were not proscribed.
This constitution was signed March, 1670, and was heralded as
“without compare.” A splendid scheme for landgraves and
lords of manors, for courts of heraldry and admiralty, but lu—
dicrously inﬂated and inappropriate for a few planters and traders
in Carolina cabins! The fact is, the Virginia planter, the Puritan
trader, the Quaker exile, went about their own legislation and
governing, very much as if they had never heard of the proprie-
THE UNITED STATES. 59
taries and their magniﬁcent scheme of empire, and the foundations
of free local institutions were so deeply laid among them by the
time (1681—1688) Sothel came over to administerthe govern-
ment of the proprietaries that, after a squabble of ﬁve or six
years, they condemned him to a twelvemonth exile, and went
peacefully on with their own affairs. Thus North Carolina came,
not rapidly, to be sure, for there was no ﬁxed minister till I 703,
no church till I705, no printing press till I754, but modestly and
quietly, as well she might, for her people were mostly the colon-
ists of other colonies, who, tired of restraints, sought serene,
unanxious life amid the granges of a southern clirne.
SOUTH CAROLINA—So loudly .had the coming of the
Model Carolina Constitution (Shaftsbury’s and Locke’s) been
proclaimed, and so much the soil and climate of Carolina been
praised as the “ beauty and envy of North America,” that even
before the former was signed, Joseph West, as agent and gover-
nor for the proprietaries, and William Sayle, as clerical leader,
started with a number of emigrants (1670) for the spot (Beau-
fort) where the early Huguenots had engraved the lilies of France
and erected the ﬁrst Carolina fortress. But sailing into Ashley
River, they stopped at the “ ﬁrst high land,”* and there started the
government of South Carolina, the people electing their own
legislature and claiming the privileges of full sovereignty. It
wasn’t in accordance with the “ Model Constitution,” but it was
popular, and when the “Model” came, it was resisted (1672).
Still the proprietaries sent over colonists, dissenters as well as
churchmen. Already (1671) Sir John Yeamans had arrived
from Barbadoes with African slavesﬁl' Dutch emigrants came
from New York. An Irish colony came under Ferguson. Even
Scotchmen settled at Port Royal, only to be assaulted and scat—
tered by the Spanish. But the most remarkable thing in the
history of colonial South Carolina is the fact that what Provi-
* This spot is now a plantation. Not having any commercial advantages, it was
soon overshadowed by Charleston and ﬁnally abandoned.
TThus slavery in South Carolina was coeval with the ﬁrst plantations on Ashley
River. It was the only one of the original thirteen States that from its cradle was
essentially a planting State with slave labor.
60 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
dence postponed for Coligny and Raleigh was, a hundred years
later, to come about, and that through a persecution * which
added greatly to the intelligence, moral worth and ultimate free-
dom of the American colonies, and for Europe hastened the
revolution in the institutions of the age. Escaping from a
land where their religion was a crime, their estates liable to be
conﬁscated, their children hardly their own, and their lives never
safe, Huguenot fugitives from Languedoc, Rochelle, Bordeaux,
Poictiers, and the beautiful valley of Tours, men of Puritan
hardihood and zeal, but without superstition or fanaticism, came
to Charleston and to the Santee. Out of such material did
, South Carolina spring. It was a pretty southern picture of
unity in variety, for all were agreed to rule themselves, and re-
sistance to the proprietaries and their visionary code Continued
till the English revolution of 1688, when a meeting of the repre-
sentatives of South Carolina disfranchised Collton, the proprie-
tary governor, and banished him‘ from the province. ‘
THE DUTCH REALM—The Dutch, splendid sailors, fond
of trade, loving land‘and settlement, were abroad in the West
Atlantic waters as soon as any nation. Henry Hudson’s voyage
(1606-1609) to Newfoundland, to Cape Cod, to the Chesapeake,
to the Delaware, thence up the Hudson, his trading-post at
Manhattan (New York), his claim, by right of discovery, to all
the country from Cape Cod to the mouth of the Delaware, with
no westward limit, as “The New Netherlands,” make a story
full of spirit and novelty. Had not his love of trade been so
much greater than‘ his love of acres and his tread not been more
ﬁrm on the decks of his ships than on dry land, the Dutchman
might have pushed his magniﬁcent frontage of four hundred
miles clear through to the Paciﬁc. He was industrious, plod-
ding, moral, brave, liberty-lovingﬁn fact an excellent Colonist,
yet his early settlements were only trading-posts. Such was
New York in I623, and Lewistown, on the Delaware, in 1631.
In his attempt to push into the valley of the Connecticut he was
absorbed by the Puritan. Then, in Delaware Bay, he was forced
* The revocation of the edict of Nantes, October 22, 1685, and the slaughter of
the Huguenots in France. ' '
THE UNITED STATES. 61
to meet the Swede, who came along with his liberal Christian
scheme, prepared under the auspices of Gustavus Adolphus
himself, who was backed by all Germany. I
S WED] SH AD VENTL—Without charter, or patent,or grant
of any kind, but relying on such title as purchase from the In-
dian might give when backed by actual settlement, the Swede
sailed into the Delaware (1638), built a fort at Christiana Creek,
and colonized Delaware anew. Then pushing to Upland, Tini-
cum, and even to the Falls of the Delaware (Trenton), he claimed
by actual settlement parts of the three States of Delaware, New I
Jersey and Pennsylvania as New Sweden. The Swede’s peace-
ful' Indian policy, his quiet religious zeal, the beauty and balmi-
ness of his new possessions, the feeling of protection that the
fame of his arms in Europe engendered, made New Sweden a
desirable home for colonists. But his presence was a bold break
into the New Netherland country. The Dutch remonstrated, but
feared,'for Gustavus was a famous ﬁghter. Still they could not
bear the loss of their trade which occupancy of both banks of
so important a stream as the Delaware, by the Swedes, threatened.
Resorting to a shrewd. trick, they built a fort at Newcastle, below
the Swedish settlement, and thus hemmed the interloping Scan-
dinavian in. In‘ a thoughtless hour theSwedish governor at-
tacked this fort and drove the Dutch _out. Stuyvesant, the
Dutch governor, sent around a ﬂeet from- Manhattan (New
York), which swept the ‘Delaware of every Swedish stronghold
(I63 5). But if his New Sweden was thus summarily wiped out,
the Swede himself stayed; his impress is still visible in all the
land he possessed; it was his Indian policy that Penn adopted;
his history is loved and honored; he was entirely too good a man
to drive away, and so became a factor, direct or indirect, in
whatever appertained to after Delaware settlement.
NEW F’ERSE Y TAKES FORM—The Dutch were prouder
than ever of their great realm, the restored New Netherlands.
But there was a sad day ahead. Cromwell would strike Hol-
land through her most prosperous colony. His plan of humil-
iation was never fully carried out, but it was remembered by
Charles II. This monarch gave the-country from the Connecti-
all
.1 ii
in
- - nit/r
i n’l'k 1.
v .i
_ LIL
t} r I ..t i . t/ .M
g .lnsllgl 57.. \
E: 1.. . . . t \
\\\\v\\\» .‘.\t \ _ “\\~
.1. :3: 1-:

.
GUSTAVUS 1. OF SWEDEN.
62
POLITICAL HIsToRv. . 63
cut to the Delaware to the Duke of York, and then proceeded
to expel the Dutch from a domain he contemptuously called his
own. Stuyvesant yielded in the face of superior force (September,
I664). In October, 1664, the Dutch and Swedes on the Dela-
ware capitulated, and for the ﬁrst time the whole Atlantic coast
of the old thirteen States was in possession-of England. The
New Netherlands were speedily dismembered. Two months be-
fore their fall, and in anticipation of that event, the Duke of
York assigned to Berkley and Sir George Cartaret, both pro—
prietaries of Carolina, the land between the Hudson and the
Delaware (June 23, 1664). This became New Jersey, already
peopled by Puritans, Quakers, Swedes and Scotch dissenters.
Cartaret became governor, and he gave the colony a liberal form
of government.
THE QUAKER COMES—All sects were ﬁnding an asylum
in America, why should not the peaceful, pious, liberty-loving
Quaker? His experiment was now ripe for trial. ‘The son of a
Leicestershire weaver and the apprentice of a Nottingham shoe-
maker, George Fox, had questioned his life, till the revelation
came that truth is only to beisought by listening to the voice of
God in the soul. Creeds and superstitions and idle forms of
men were vanities. The Spirit was the true monitor. This was
freedom in the abstract. Monarchy, hierarchy, code, every
outward, hampering, trammelling thing, must go down before it.
' The Quaker rise was remarkable and memorable. It was intel—
lectual freedom bursting out amid the masses, the old philos-r
ophy of the Portico playing its part among the people. Quaker-
ism, as developed by Barclay and Penn, became intellectual free-
dom, the supremacy of mind, universal enfranchisement. Its
reality was the Inner Light. As old as humanity, it embraced
humanity. The ﬁrst distinctive Quaker settlement was in West -
New Jersey at Salem, I67 5, on a moiety of his province bought
of Berkley. In this purchase Penn became interested. But
the Quaker wanted more. Even the purchase of East New
Jersey of the heirs of Cartaret was not enough. A grant must
be had west of the Delaware. For this Penn became a suitor in
I680. England owed his father £16,000 for signal service in
64 POLITICAL HISTORY.
naval warfare against the Dutch. Grant of a province was an
easy way to cancel the debt. In favor with the Duke of York,
he obtained from Charles 11., Pennsylvania, which was included
within three degrees of latitude and ﬁve of longitude, west of the
Delaware. The Duke of York retained the three lower counties ;
that is, the State of Delaware, as an appendage to his New York
possessions. Penn launched his experiment in 1682, at Phila-
delphia. His form of government was liberal. No colonist
complained of power withheld or right endangered. His scheme
is thus epitomized in his own language: “It is the great end of
government to support power in reverence with the people, and
to secure the people from the abuse of power; for liberty with-
out obedience is confusion, and obedience without liberty is
slavery.” His policy with the Indian was that of the Swede,
who had preceded him. The native was dealt with as a man.
His lands were bought, not‘stolen. Respect for native titles
secured ﬁrmness for the ti'tles of the colonists.* The experi-
ment was a success from the start. The Quaker asylum on the
Delaware was thronged by Welsh, and Irish and Scotch, as well
as English. The Low Countries and all Germany sent their grand
contingent of inoffensive, religious, land-getting, forest-reducing
yeomanry. No American colony moved off under such auspices
nor with so ﬁrm a tread. The Pennsylvania which was in Vir-
ginia, in the New Netherlands, in the new Sweden, in the grant to
the Duke of York, and as Lord Baltimore claimed partly in Mary-
land (hence the dispute which ended in the celebrated Mason and
Dixon line) took a title which remained unmolested by royalty,
and a territorial shape which corresponds with that of to-day, ex-
cept the small triangle on Lake Erie, which was afterwards added.
DA WN OF NEW YORK—New York, like New Jersey,
_ Delaware and Pennsylvania, Came into existence by the partition
of the New Netherlands. When the Dutch authority passed to
England (1664), the ‘soil of the New Netherlands passed to the
* Weare sorry, for the sake of sentiment, not to be able to draw the usual picture
of Penn’s treaty with the Indians. It is not historic, but a pretty piece of imagina-
tion, due perhaps to West's painting of Penn, the Indians and the treaty tree.
Penn’s treaty was simply Penn’s policy.

WILLIAM PENN

EXPLORERS AND FIRST SETTLERS.
I.
65
66 , POLITICAL HISTORY OF
Duke of York. We have seen how he disposed of New jersey,
how he withdrew his right in order to'let Penn have a clear
title to Pennsylvania, how he reserved Delaware, and now his
claim to New York remained. It was not the New York of to-
day, but‘Vermont ‘also, and a vague boundary to the west of the
Massachusetts Colony. Nor had the Duke of York to plant
a colony. It was already planted—a hardy Dutch colony,
wealthy, populous, prosperous. He had but to frame a new
government in a concessory spirit, and rule, through governors,
an empire of strangers. But do his best, things went crooked.
The republican spirit was abroad there as well as elsewhere.
The local assembly became as clamorous for popular rights as
that of any other colony. To deny a colonial parliament and
the freeman’s voice was to deprive the colonists of the rights of
Englishmen. At last, October, 1683, seventy years after Man-
hattan was ﬁrst occupied, nineteen years after the territory passed
to the English, the representatives of the people met in assembly,
and their self-established “ Charter of Liberties ” gave New York
a place in the colonial brotherhood of the Atlantic. Dutchman
and Englishman agreed to a bond of government whose gist was
“supreme legislation in governor, council and people, in general
assembly met, franchise in freemen without qualiﬁcation, trial by
jury of peers, taxation only by consent of assembly, no martial
law, free religion.” A vast advance on Puritanism and on the
State Churchism of Virginia. _ A last desperate effort was made
by the Duke of York to hold deﬁant control of his domains and
exercise arbitrary power, by a scheme to consolidate the colonies
of the northeast into an empire. This attempt led to a general
upsetting of boundaries and great uncertainty of titles, but the
colonists were so securely nestled in their seats that few if any
settlements lost their jurisdiction or identity.
T DELA WARE—The three lower coun-
ties‘which. the Duke of York reserved as an appendage to his
New'l-‘York domain, when the charter of Pennsylvania was given
to Penn, never became a part of New York, in fact. They were
permitted to be ruled by the same council that was elected to
rule Pennsylvania, all the people voting. But the Pennsylvania
THE UNITED STATES, ' 67
strength largely preponderated in this council and its control
grew irksome. So the lower counties withdrew, with the con—
sent of Penn, and were incorporated into a separate government
under Governor Markam. Thus did Delaware secure a sepa-
rate existence (I691). It was the act of her own citizens. But
one thing must be observed. The Stuart dynasty had fallen in
England, and the revolution of 1688 had been completedby the
induction of Protestant William and Mary. There was a new
order of things beyond the water; there was to be here. Dis—
tinctive Delaware was not a Stuart creation, as were all the
colonies before it. It therefore had no great change to contem-
plate, no ‘radical innovation to fear. It would go on smoothly,
toward that destiny which awaited all the colonies, when the
hour of Independence came.
COLONY OF GEORGIA—Like Delaware, Georgia was
' not to be a colony of the Stuarts. Every colony thus far had
its motive for existence, moral, commercial or otherwise——
Carolina for the Huguenot, Virginia for the Cavalier, Maryland
for the Catholic, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware for
the Quaker, New York and Connecticut for the commercial
Dutchman and Puritan, Rhode Island for the Independent,
Massachusetts and the Northeast for the Puritan. Georgia was
to be dedicated to the cause of oppressed poverty in the old
world. England and Spain had long been clashing about the
Florida and Carolina boundary. England determined to settle
the proud claim of Spain to a limitless Florida; in other words
she determined to push her Carolina border as far down as she
could, and thus open the magniﬁcent area of the Savannah.
Oglethorpe, the Penn of the South, a member of parliament,
knew of it. He had long been impressed with the hardships of
the British debtor laws; had seen thousands of really good but
unfortunate men thrown into prison, lose their all, and their
caste too, by means of them; had devised a plan of giving them
a home in the new world, far from the scenes of their misery
and disgrace, and where industry and freedom would enable
them to recover manhood and fortune. To further this end
George II. granted him a charter (June 9, I732) for the country
68 ‘ POLITICAL HISTORY OF
between the Savannah and Altamaha, and from the head springs
of those rivers west to the Paciﬁc. It was the province of
Georgia (after the donor) and was placed for twenty-one years
under the guardianship of a corporation “in trust for the poor.”
With 120 emigrants, Oglethorpe planted his ensign on the
“ high bluff” where Savannah now stands. His enterprise had
been undertaken with the best wishes of benevolent England.
It was welcomed by the natives of every neighboring tribe.
Under the happiest auspices Oglethorpe began the Common-
wealth of Georgia, “a place of refuge for the distressed people
of Britain and the persecuted Protestants of Europe.” And it
was truly a refuge (but not for Catholics), for there came num-
bers from England, from other colonies, and many Moravians
from the continent of Europe. Augusta was laid out, 1734.
Oglethorpe’s government was somewhat crude, but it proved’
yielding and the colonists soon enlarged it to suit themselves.
While it proscribed Catholics, it prohibited slavery. The fame
of this youngest colony was much spread by Oglethorpe, who
returned to England after a residence here of ﬁfteen months.
Scotch mountaineers came and pitched at New Inverness.
Oglethorpe himself returned with large Moravian reinforce-
ments. The enthusiasm of religion was abroad in the new
country, and the colonists did not fear death. They were
therefore brave to shove the Spanish back and make for Eng-
land a southern border. Pushing to the St. John’s and claiming
it as the line, they planted Fort St. George, as the defence of the
British frontier. At this Spain rallied. Negotiations ensued,
and St. Mary’s became the southern boundary of Oglethorpe’s
colony. But war soon followed, for England was not- satisﬁed
with the Spanish presence in Florida at all, neither was Spain
satisﬁed with the Protestant menace which now hugged so
closely her northern border. Oglethorpe valiantly defended his
colony, drove off the Spaniards, and the “pious experiment”
was on a substantial footing. The transition of power from the
corporation of Georgia, at the expiration of its twenty-one
years, to the people was easy, and sovereignty was as free and
fully representative as in any colony.
THE UNITED STATES. 69
RE V OL UT [ON OF 1688.——One thing at least is clear in this
sketch of colonial creations. The king ever denied the right of
the English parliament to interfere with his power to grant lands
and to ordain governments for them. The Stuarts clung to this
principle with Spartan tenacity. '
Another thing is equally clear. The colonies, accepting the
Stuart doctrine, always claimed exemption from the laws of the
British parliament. But in doing so they did not thereby fall
back entirely under the legislation prescribed by the king.
Colonists claimed the rights of Englishmen. Among those
rights was that to a parliament or assembly. Local legislation
was theirs by their birthright as Englishmen. Sovereignty
meant the same thing here as at home. This at ﬁrst, and after-
wards vastly more, for the colonists had come here because their
voice was not large enough at home, nor their rights as freemen
broad enough. Here the word freeman meant vastly more
than at home. The American assembly was therefore more
clearly representative, more popular, more directly responsible.
All freemen were in general eligible to it. There were no
titles, no estates, nothing to hamper full, free representation.
The republican or democratic spirit which had been under-
mining the Stuart dynasty at home and shaking monarchical
institutions to their centres, here found that expression denied
it at home. It here won a victory which the king withheld
from his own parliament. But the time had come in England
when Englishmen must speak more ﬁrmly through their parlia-
ment. It too must be made stronger against royal claims; in
other words must become more truly representative of the
wishes of the people. The Stuart who would further defy
public opinion, who would blindly arrogate legislative power,
who would refuse to move with the age and in obedience to
overwhelming sentiment, must abdicate. . This was the revolu-
tion of 1688. For thev glory of England they'passed from the
throne, leaving as their monuments in America a tier of Atlantic
colonies which owed their titles and limits to royal charters, but
which in liberty and enlightenment were an hundred years in
advance of the last representative'of the line. i
70 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
They were gone. The tide of liberty had rolled so high,
even in England, as to engulf them. The people had assumed
to sit in judgment on divinely appointed royalty. The old idea
of a Christian monarchy resting on the law of God was exploded,
and political power was to seek its origin in compact. Nothing
was to bind freemen to obey government save their own solemn
agreement. Power for the Stuart was a right. Power hence-
forth was to be a trust, whose violation dissolved the obligation
to allegiance. Supreme power was to be in the legislature,
which was the true embodiment of the sovereignty of the peo- I
ple. In 1688 England had gotten as far on as Massachusetts in
I620, or, for that matter, as any of the colonies at the date of
their foundation. Yet not so far, for the parliament that arose
to the full height of English sentiment in expelling the Stuarts
and assuming to act as the guardian of power for the people,
too boldly stood in the king’s shoes. It was well enough at
home, but when it claimed the right to legislate for the colonies,
it was doing far more than smiting a dead Stuart; it was doing,
now that there was no Stuart to interpose his despotic veto,
that which would arouse in America a sentiment of opposition
full of remonstrance at ﬁrst, full of revolution at last. ' The
parliament’s ﬁght was always with the king; now it would be
direct with the colonies. Thus,,by a strange conjuncture of
affairs, the very dynasty which had all along stood in the way
of English progress and reform, had been not only the protec-
tion of the colonies, but the chief contributor to the triumph of
the republican spirit within them and to their ultimate inde-
pendence.
But as yet the consequences of the change in dynasty could
not be foreseen. Even if some prophetic soul could have taken
in the next century as far down as to I 776 or I 783, and proclaimed
what it saw in tones sufﬁciently loud to have been heard by
every Colonist, the rejoicing over the accession of William III.
and Mary would not have been less spontaneous and emphatic.
Charters which existed had been overlapped and confused be-
yond comprehension. Charters which covered heady and oppos-
ing colonies had been unceremoniously and ruthlessly cancelled.
THE UNITED STATES. 71
Many colonies had fought the battles of the new American
institution and civilization against the king’s claim of legislative
interference, to the very verge of despair and surrender. But
above all the new dynasty was conﬁrmedly Protestant, and in
that respect representative of a great majority sentiment at home
and in the colonies. A source of fresh colonial inspiration, it
began by rejecting the old order of things. Cancelled charters
were restored. New governors were commissioned. There
was jostling here and shaking up there, but in general the liber-
ties of the people became more securely imbedded in well-under-
stood forms of law. Prosperity was not retarded, nor faith in
colonial experiment weakened. The grand result was a rebound
of strength and conﬁdence, and a new departure in colonial
spirit and enterprise. Only on one side was the sky dark, and
there hovered the cloud of the. rejuvenated English parliament.
The seeds of the American revolution had ever been in its claim
of a right to legislate for the colonies. Now the seeds were
bursting through the ground, for parliament was already legis-
lating on American commerce; they would grow and bear
bloody fruit when the avowal came that the right existed to
legislate for them in all cases whatsoever. .
STATE OUT LINES—We have now taken a hasty view of
English titles to the territory on the Atlantic coast. We have
followed the divisions of that territory among the colonies, and
seen how each colony got metes and bounds. Further, we have
endeavored to give a reason for the existence of each colony, its
underlying and actuating motive for colonization, the class of
mind that took part in the work of pioneering, the shape their
new institutions took almost from the start ; and especially have
we tried to impress on the reader a knowledge of the active
political spirit, ‘the love of freedom, the desire for unfettered per-
sonal sovereignty, the rapid growth of the democratic idea and
republican institutions, in the new land, all in spite of ﬁrm attach-
ment to monarchy, and because the men, the time, the country,
made other results impossible.
One can already see in these beginnings the dawn of the full
state institution. The spirit which permeated each colony at
72 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
the time of the English revolution of 1688 did not change, ex-
cept as it grew larger, freer, bolder, till the colonial yoke was
broken.* And so one can see in the confused and overlapping
boundaries of these colonies the dim territorial outlines of the
thirteen original States. Indeed some, as Delaware, Maryland,
Rhode Island, never afterwards shifted their colonial limits.
With others, time brought about many geographic changes, and
settled grave questions of boundary which arose chieﬂy from
the fact that their charters and grants were either open at the
western end, or extended clear through to the Paciﬁc. The
names of the colonies became the names of the respective
States both under the articles of confederation and the present
federal constitution.
FRENCH EMPIRE—Though the Dutch, the Swedes, and the
French had passed from the Atlantic front of the present United
States, the latter were still the proud claimants of vast and fertile
areas North, West, and South. French adventure in America
was a strange admixture of commercial and religious zeal. A
single person was often priest, trader, and colonist. As already
seen, the French advent was early. Years before the Pilgrims
anchored at Cape Cod, French missionaries had planted a
Roman Church in eastern Maine (1615), and Le Caron, sub-
sisting by alms from the natives, had, on foot and in canoe,
pushed his way to the rivers of Lake Huron (I616). The grant
of New France to Richelieu, Champlain, Razilly and the hundred
associates, by Louis XIII. (I627), embraced the St. Lawrence
basin, and that of all rivers running into the sea (hence the
French claim to Maine and New York), and also all the country
* 5‘ Even if the colonists disclaimed any present passion for independence, they
were, in the inherent opposition between their principles and the English system,
as ripe for governing themselves in 1689 as in 1776.”-—Baneroft, vol. iii., 109.
“ The independency the colonies thirst after is notorious.”-—Bn'tz'slz Lords of
Trade, in 1701.
“Commonwealth notions improve daily, and if it be not checked in time the
rights and privileges of English subjects will be thought too narrow.”--Quarr_y,
writing in 1703.
“ The colonists will in time cast off their allegiance and set up a government of
their own.”—Prg'rzt, of 1705.
THE UNITED STATES. 73
south of Virginia and north of Spanish Florida (perhaps even
all Florida).* To the West all was open, and to the Jesuit was
entrusted the work of enlarging the French Dominion. Cham-
plain held and peopled the line of the St. Lawrence. Brebeuf
and Daniel pierced the Huron possessions, chanting their Te
Deums among the pines and bringing the tawny natives to see
the light. Quebec and Montreal got to be important towns, and
the great lake water-ways became familiar. Frenchmen stood
looking into the land of the Sioux, the great valley of the Mis-
sissippi, ﬁve years before Eliot addressed the Indian in the
vicinity of Boston. Marquette established the Mission of St.
Mary, at the outlet of Lake Superior, in 1668. It was the oldest
settlement by Europeans within the present State of Michigan,
but was not permanent. He projected the discovery of the true
Mississippi, and designed to plant the banners of France‘ on the
Paciﬁc or by the side of Spain, on the Gulf of Mexico. With
Joliet for a companion, they ascend the Fox River, cross to the
Wisconsin, and in two birch-bark canoes “ happily ﬂoat down the
great river” between the wide plains of Illinois and Iowa, to
Des Moines, then past the great Missouri, the Ohio (then called
Wabash), and on to the Akansea (Arkansas). There they found
that the Father of Rivers went, not into the ocean east of Florida,
nor yet into the Gulf of California. Returning, they ascended
the Illinois, passed up through Chicago to Lake Michigan (Lake
of the Illinois), and on to the Green Bay Settlement (1673).
La Salle took up the wondrous tale and added one of its most
brilliant chapters. His towns mark his trail. Leaving Niagara
in 1679, he was at the site of Detroitfl' Mackinaw, up the St.
*This New France of the South was the portion Coligny designed to settle with
Huguenots, and after him Raleigh. It passed naturally from France to England,
because both countries were anxious to see Raleigh redeem Coligny’s failure, and to
have a Protestant barrier set up against Spain’s Catholic Florida.
TDetroit was permanently settled by De la Motte Cadillac, with one hundred
Frenchmen, in June, 1701. It is the oldest permanent settlement in Michigan.
Michigan, therefore, has a history back of Georgia, and is the oldest of the Western
States with, perhaps, the exception of Illinois. We say per/zaps, because the claim
is made that Kaskaskia (111.) was the oldest permanent European settlement in the
valley of the Mississippi. It was founded by Father Gravier, as a Jesuit Mission,
74 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
i
joseph, and over at Kankakee.- While Hennepin took in the
upper Mississippi, perhaps to its source, La Salle studied the
valleys of the Ohio, Illinois and Tennessee, and in 1682 descended
the Mississippi to its mouth, realizing Marquette’s dream of plant-
ing the arms of France on the Gulf. It was named Louisiana, in
honor of Louis XIV., and “ the terrestrial paradise of America,”
“the delight of the New World.” By 168 5 a colony came for Lou-
isiana, but striking Matagorcla Bay, it stopped there, and made
Texas a part of the French Empire in America. By no treaty
or document did France ever relinquish her hold on Texas ex-
cept by the general cessions of Louisiana.
For years France clung tenaciously to her magniﬁcent Amer-
ican possessions, the richest, best watered, most boundless,
owned by any foreign nation. Though an active and indefati-
gable Colonist, her institutions were too far behind the age, too
much infused with Romanism, too feudal in character, to ﬁnd
high or permanent development in the new soil. By 1706 her
title to the New France of the South, between Virginia (really
the ‘Carolinas) and Florida, had been wholly merged in that of
England. In I 71 3, Acadia (Nova Scotia and part of Maine) was
ceded to the English. It “ was the most important part” of the
New France of the North. There was a general withdrawal of
all French claims to the line of Lake Champlain, and to the set-
tlements in New York. But by 1721 they were back at Niagara,
and stout claimants for, as well as actual occupants of, their St.
Lawrence possessions.
Their Louisiana, which had not been affected by the peace of
Utrecht (I 7I 3), was a wonderful country. Blending with New
France on the line of the lakes, and cut off nowhere in the north
except by the possessions of the Hudson Bay Company in the
extreme northwest, it ran to the gulf at Mobile, swept the gulf
line to the mouth of the Rio Grande, then up to the Red River
ridges, then west to the Gulf of California. These were ideal
but the date is not known exactly. He was in Illinois in 1693, and probably his
mission was then founded. The fact that Kaskaskia got to be an important mis-
sionary centre may have helped to give it rank as the oldest permanent settlement
of the West. '
THE UNITED STATES. 75
bounds, but such as France was willing to maintain against both
England and Spain. Not a fountain flowed west of the sources
of the Allegheny, Monongahela, Kanawha or Tennessee which
did not rise in French soil. What a menace to the British
colonies! What a barrier to westward advancement! Such
could not long be. By the tripartite treaty of February 16,
I 763, between England, France and Spain, France ceded to Eng-
land all Canada and all of her Louisiana east of the Mississippi
and as far south as the Iberville River, thence eastward to the sea.
This left her only a small strip along the gulf, east of the Mis-
sissippi, and her immense domains west of that river. But only
for a moment. On the same day all that was left of Louisiana
on the continent was ceded to Spain. France was virtually out-
of the country. It had been a war (the Seven Years’ War) for
new territorial adjustment, both in Europe and America, and
even in view of the results on this continent alone, well may
George III. have said: “England never signed such a peace
before, nor, I believe, any other power in Europe.”
RESULTS OF FRENCH LOSS—Moreover, it had been
a war largely fought on American soil. Never before had the
forests of the New World reverberated the steady tramp of so
many armed and disciplined men. At Lake George alone there
assembled an army of I 5,000 from. New York, New Jersey and
New England for the grand assault on Canada. To the south
the forces of Virginia, Maryland and, Pennsylvania fell into line
to move on Fort Duquesne, and embalm the name of Pitt in the
border town (Pittsburg), which was to stand as the gateway of
the west so long as the Allegheny and Monongahela shall ﬂow
to form the Ohio, or the English tongue shall continue to be the
language of freedom in the boundless areas traversed by their
waters. And still farther to the south arose the clangor of camp
and din of war. France would strike the rear of Virginia and
the Carolinas by means of the Indians in the fastnesses of Ten—
nessee, fed and spurred on by food and counsel from the line of
the Mississippi. The rangers of the Carolinas did their best to
puncture the eastward moving centre of the mighty Cherokees.
If they failed, failure was not disastrous, for peace covered dis-
76 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
comﬁture with the bloom of new auspices, and a knowledge of
the Tennessee and Cumberland valleys had been gained which
would soon be turned to good account.
THE AMERICAN OUTLOOK—If the English king and
Protestant Europe could justly fall into raptures over the im-
mense results of the war in America alone, much more could
the colonies pride themselves on such results. They had opened
an empire for themselves beyond the Alleghenies, across the
prairies, even to the father of waters. The acquisition repre-
'sented their money, valor and blood. Even the plan of striking
France through her New France and Louisiana was American,
and due to the sagacity of our Own Franklin. Then its result here
‘was not a mere riddance of a powerful neighbor, not a mere
acquisition of limitless, fertile acres. It was proof that the
colonies could stand together in the face of a common danger,
evidence that thus compacted they had all the elements of a
nation, and especially that of strength to defend themselves
against Old world aggression, however skilfully armed and boldly
pushed. With conﬁdence, therefore, they peeredfrom the peaks
of the Alleghenies into their western valleys, and with a fervor,
too, equal to that of Marquette, who, seventy years before, stand~
ing on the margin of the lakes, cast his prophetic eye to the
gulf and saw the French lily bloom perennially amid the wild
ﬂowers of the prairies. Thus contemplating a political mastery
which ranged from the gulf to the poles, whose forms of institu-
tion, law and literature were to spread the English tongue more
widely than any that had ever given expression to human
thought, the gazers from their mountain tops might well have
chanted in chorus Ban'croft’s sublime apostrophe:
“ Go forth, then, language of Milton and Hampden, language
of my country, take possession of the North American conti-
nent! Gladden the waste places with every tone that has been
rightly struck on the English lyre, with every English word that
has been spoken well for liberty and for man! Give an echo to
the now silent and solitary mountains; gush out with the foun-
tains that as yet sing their anthems all day long without response;
ﬁll the valleys with the voices of love in its purity, the pledges
THE UNITED STATES. 77
of friendship in its faithfulness, and as the morning sun drinks
the dewdrop from the ﬂowers all the way from the dreary At-
lantic to the Peaceful ocean, meet him with the oyous hum of the
early industry of freemen! Utter boldly and spread widely
through the world the thoughts of the coming apostles of the
people's liberty, till the sound that cheers the desert shall thrill
through the heart of humanity, and the lips of the messenger of
the people’s power, as he stands in beauty upon the mountains,
shall proclaim the renovating tidings of equal freedom for the
race ! ”
DRIFT TO I/VARD INDEPENDENCE—The plans of
kings, as well as those of ordinary mortals, go oft awry. The
wisdom of statesmen however shrewd may become a torment to
nations. When England drove out the Stuarts, and enthroned
Protestantism in the person of William III. and Mary, she un-
wittingly strengthened the hands of aristocracy, and organized
a parliament which in support of its own claims to authority
could never consistently surrender its control of the American
colonies. Here. was the beginning of independence and revolu—
tion. Now, by the Treaty of Paris (1763), and the cession of her
American possessions to England and Spain, France had very
deftly shifted the whole colonial policy of Europe. Her states-
men saw that for France to attempt to maintain colonies in New
France and Louisiana, was to incur constant wars and expend-
itures, if not to attempt impossibilities. They saw that her
monarchical forms simply shut off from her American colonies
even her own philosophy, economy, industrial genius, legal
skill, and ideas of Protestant freedom, and that without these, or
even better than these, no American colony could be made to
live permanently and prosper vigorously. They saw that the
exhausted polity of the middle ages, the castes of feudal Europe,
the despotism of infallible churchism, the titles of nobility,
the leases of land to vassals, and vassalage itself, could not
be perpetuated, where men who held the plough were the
bone and sinew of the land, and the only hope of colonial
success.
And seeing these things—the power of England and Spain
78 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
had opened their eyes to them—they were not afraid to make
confession of them by that surrender which left France without
a patch of American ground. I‘
And they saw other things too. They saw that as England
held‘ the Atlantic front, her future colonial policy would be
largely commercial. If France should add to this front a do-
main extending to the Mississippi, to the gulf, and to the pole,
it would make England’s policy both political and commercial.
It would sharpen the desire of her parliament to rule it from
home, and would make anxious and determined that authority,
which nothing but revolution could shake. In a word, it would
fully commit England to a dominion in America, in accordance
with her own forms of law. And thus committed, France saw
that the British situation would be full of dangers. Far ad-
vanced as England was, it would still be like an attempt to ﬁt a
dead carcass to a living soul, for English-America had English
liberties in greater purity, and with far more of the power of the
people than in England. The colonial inhabitants were self-
organized bodies of freeholders, natural forest-levelers, industrious
soil-winners, bold pioneers, pushing their way farther and farther
each year, and scorning to take any step backward. They had
schools, printing presses, books, newspapers, lawyers, doctors,
ministers of their own choosing. They were self-helpful in
private affairs, and conﬁdent of their ability to care for them-
selves politically through their local legislatures and municipal
corporations. They were proud of their dwelling-place, and
had unbounded faith in its future, under their own management.
They were strong numerically and physically, and had ust
showed that they were capable of union both for defending the
ﬂag of England, and driving off the French foe that hovered all
along their northern and western border. That menace removed,
the need of reliance on England for protection against France
no longer felt, left alone to confront only the attempt of England
to fasten on them her obnoxious laws, what wouldn’t they do P
France saw what they would do, and knew what they were
capable of doing. Her surrender of Canada and Louisiana was
therefore a blow at England. She would turn the force to which
THE UNITED STATES. 79
she had to succumb into a weapon with which England might
cut, her own colonial throat.*
BAD FIX OE EN GLAND.——The Treaty of Paris (1763)
left England with a debt of $700,000,000, half of which was due
to The Seven Years’ War. She got nothing in Europe to com-
pensate her. But she got, in America, Canada and the Ohio
Valley. With her rule of the former we have nothing to do.
The latter came directly to her Atlantic colonies. As they pro-
ﬁted, therefore should England proﬁt. Here began that scheme
of parliamentary control which was designed to make the col-
onies pay as much of the English war debt as possible, which
took exclusive jurisdiction of their commerce, which imposed
burdensome taxes, which denied representation in the British
parliament, and which culminated in the claim of a right to ex-
clusive legislative jurisdiction. The colonial charters should all
fall and one uniform system of government be substituted in
their stead. To make sure of order and strict enforcement of
law, a part of the standing army was to ﬁnd quarters in the col-
onies and be supported at their expense. The father of the
*This policy of France, even if a compulsory one, was far-sighted and clung to
with the greatest tenacity. She had studied it long and well, and its merits were
recognized by shrewd observers, long before the game was exposed by the surrender
of her American territory. As early as 1748 it was reasoned in New York that the
conquest of Canada by relieving the northern colonies from danger would hasten
their emancipation. A Swedish traveller, in that year, published the same in
Europe as his impression. It was an early dream of John Adams that the “re-
moval of the turbulent Gallics,” would be a prelude to the approaching greatness
of the country. The French minister of foreign affairs warned the English envoy
that the cession of Canada would lead to the independence of North America.
When New France surrendered, Choiseul, a Frenchman, exclaimed, “ We have
caught them (the English) at last.” Vergennes said, “ England will ere long re-
pent of having removed the only check that could keep her colonies in awe. She
will call on them to contribute toward supporting the burdens they helped to bring
on her, and they will answer by striking off all dependence.” Lord Mansﬁeld de-
clared, “ Ever since the Treaty of Paris I always thought the Northern Colonies
were meditating a state of independency on Great Britain. France backed the
policy thus begun by aiding the colonies when they did strike for independence.
And so Napoleon, to further aid the commercial supremacy of the United States
and cripple that of England, got possession of Spanish Louisiana, only to turn it'
over to this country.”
80 POLITICAL HISTORY.
scheme was the .celebrated Charles Townsend, English First
Lord of Trade, with the administration of the colonies, who was
~ supposed to know more about American affairs than any other
man. It struck parliament March 9, 1763, in the shape of an
American tax-bill, and almost immediately the colonies, espe-
cially those of the north, began to thunder back their resentment.
The horns of parliament and the colonies were locked in that
dread encounter which in thirteen years would result in inde-
pendence.
FIRST COLONIAL C ONGRESS—Townsend’s Tax scheme
was known to be the forerunner of the Stamp Act, Sugar Act,
and Tea Act, which, when they came, would crown the power
of parliament to get into the homes and pockets of the American
colonists. The sentiment of protest therefore became as lively
as if these acts were already a fact. The stream of resistance
ran rapidly and angrily, and bore along inevitably toward the
ﬁnal plunge into revolution. The eloquent voices of Samuel
Adams and James Otis were heard in Massachusetts, and a
Boston town-meeting, protesting loyalty to the crown, pleaded
for the rights of “the free-born subjects of Great Britain in
America.”*
A response was heard from the Rhode Island assembly, where
Stephen Hopkins was governor (1764). New York, which had
moved in 1759, now seconded her ﬁrst motion. North Carolina
expressed her concurrence with the views of Massachusetts in
the same year. And soon Connecticut, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, and Virginia joined their voices of remonstrance to
the chorus, which was now heard high above the din of waves
* Otis argued that the original ,possessors of power were the whole people ; that
the colonies enjoyed the right of governing and taxing themselves through their local
legislatures; that there was no proscription old enough to supersede the law of
nature and the grant of God Almighty, who had given all men a right to be free;
that nothing but life and liberty were hereditable; that in solving the grand political
problem the ﬁrst principle must be the equality and power of the whole. And these
became the prevailing Whig (anti-Tory) views of the day and the colonial cause.
The party names were Whigs, Patriots, Sons of Liberty, these for the colonists
opposed to taxation; and Loyalists, Tories and Friends of Government, these for
the parliament and crown.
\

ti ~.
§_.=\\ *1
he!»
.\. .Hx
@CSCmHt >U>gm.

81
82 ' POLITICAL HISTORY OF
on the whole Atlantic front. Plea followed plea, for justice;
petition after petition wasv sent over for parliament to stay its
hard, heavy hand. Argument after argument was advanced in '
favor of free colonial existence, subject always to that depend;
ence which had existed from the start. Parliament persisted.
Townsend closed his mightiest effort in favor of the Stamp Act
(I765) with “These children of our planting,(the colonists),
nourished by our indulgence until they are grown to a good
degree of strength and opulence, and protected by ‘our arms,
will they grudge to contribute their mite to relieve us from the
' heavy load of national expense which we lie under?”
To which Colonel Barre, with eye darting ﬁre and voice full
of emotion, replied: “ Children planted by your care? No!
your oppression planted them in America. They ﬂed from your
tyranny into a then uninhabited land where they were exposed
to almost all the hardships to which human nature is liable, and
among others to the savage cruelty of the enemyof the country
—a people the most subtle and terrible of any that ever in—
habited any part of God’s earth; yet, actuated by principles of
true English liberty, they met these hardships with pleasure,
compared with those they sufferedw in their own country from
the hands of those that should have been their friends.
“ They nourished by your indulgence? They grew by,your
neglect of them. As soon as you began to care for them, that
care was exercised in sending, persons to rule over them ‘in one
department and another, who were perhaps the deputies of some
deputy of members of this house, sent to spy out their liberty, to
misrepresent their actions, and to prey upon them—men whose
behavior on many occasions has caused the blood of those Sons
of Liberty to recoil within them—men promoted to the highest
seats of justice; some, to my knowledge, were glad by going
to foreign countries to escape being brought to, a bar of justice
in their own.
“ They protected by your arms ? They have nobly taken up
arms in your defence, have exerted their valor amidst their con-
stant and laborious industry for the defence of a country whose
frontiers, while drenched in blood, its interior parts have yielded
THE UNITED STATES. 83
all its little savings to your enlargement; and believe me—re-
member I this day z‘oldyou so—that the same spirit which actuated
that people at ﬁrst will continue with them still. But prudence
forbids me to explain myself further. God knows I do not at
this time speak from motives of party heat. What I deliver are
the genuine sentiments of my heart; however superior to me in
general knowledge and experience the respectable body of this
House (of Commons) may be, yet I claim to know more of
America than most of you, having seen and been conversant in
that country. The people there are as truly loyal, I believe, as
any subjects the king has ; but a people jealous of their liberties,
and who will vindicate them, if they should be violated. But
the subject is too delicate. I will say no more.”
Imagine the effect upon the colonists of a speech like this
ﬁred right into the midst of a Tory parliament! Otis suggested
to the Massachusetts assembly a meeting of committees from all
the assemblies of the colonies and a circular was sent out to
such assemblies, to secure joint action in opposing the English
policy. Now, England trusted her entire policy of taxation to
the assumed fact that union among the colonies was impossible.
As the response to the Massachusetts circular was slow, it began
to seem as if the English idea were, for the time being, correct,
but Virginia sprang into the front, and her Patrick Henry,
against the opposition of such as Bland, Pendleton, Randolph,
and Wythe, startled her House of Burgesses with his warning
ﬂash of history: “ T arquin and Caesar had each a Brutus;
Charles the First his Cromwell; and George the Third [cries of
treason! treason !] may proﬁt by their example!” The result
(1765) was a series of resolutions whose gist was no obedience
to a law imposing a tax not sanctioned by the general assembly.
Rhode Island agreed to act in concert with Massachusetts.
South Carolina, through the inﬂuence of Gadsden, selected coma
missioners. Pennsylvania and Connecticut acted similarly. All
the thirteen colonies either expressed sympathy or chose dele~
gates. “Join or die” became a favorite motto. The “Sons
of Liberty ” were organized, who meant opposition of the
most determined character. “ Liberty, property, and no
84 POLITICAL HISTORY.
stamps” was the greeting prepared for the English stamp dis—
tributors.*
The congress met in the City Hall, New York, Oct. 7, I 765.
It consisted of twenty-eight delegates from nine colonies, four,
though sympathizing with the movement, not choosing repre-
sentatives. For the ﬁrst time the patriots of America were
together on the question of entire colonial union. It published
a declaration of rights and grievances, expressing loyalty to the
king, respect for parliament where it had a right to legislate,
claiming the rights of English-born subjects, affirming the injus-
tice of taxation without representation, setting forth the adequacy
of their own local legislatures to attend to all their local con-
cernsri An address to the king was prepared in the same spirit.
The congress adjourned on the 25th of October.
There was something now to give coherency to debate and
resolution in the respective colonies. The Whig and Tory
parties in each could talk to a point, and they did with a direct-
ness and vehemence which made the forest assemblies ring.
* The Stamp Act passed the House of Commons Feb. 27, 176 5, and the House
of Lords March 8, 1765. It introduced direct taxation into the English policy.
But for the fact that it was carrying that policy to the uttermost, it should not have
been as objectionable as the previous navigation acts which virtually limited Ameri-
can trade to England alone. Americans could get no commodity of use to them,
from any nation, other than England, without collecting a heavy duty on it for
England’s beneﬁt. And now, under the Stamp Act, stamps were to be paid for and
affixed to all legal and commercial transactions of moment.
1' The colonies represented were:
Massachusetts, by James Otis, Oliver Partridge, Timothy Ruggles.
South Carolina, by Thomas Lynch, Christopher Gadsden, John Rutledge.
Pennsylvania, by John Dickinson, John Morton, George Bryan.
Rhode Island, by Metcalf Bowler, Henry Ward.
Connecticut, by Eliphalet Dyer, David Rowland, William S. Johnson.
Delaware, by Thomas McKean, Caesar Rodney.
Maryland, by William Murdock, Edward Tilghman, Thomas Ringgold.
New Jersey, by Robert Ogden, Hendrick Fisher, Joseph Bordon.
New York, by Robert Livingston, John Cruger, Philip Livingstone, William
Bayard, Leonard Lespinward.
Virginia, New Hampshire, Georgia and North Carolina did not send delegates.
Delegates present from only six of the colonies signed the proceedings of the con-
gress; New York, Connecticut and South Carolina delegates not being authorized
to sign.


l
/,/
.7"
'AIINGIH ‘:IQIHLVJ


(I /.///
/// f 7/1””, . I
‘ I, - /-’V (/O


‘e5’ , ,j {at ,/’


\


-- j \ \ \\
_,_ ‘a (NNNNNI
'~\\\l\”‘l\ \ N NW


\
\
We‘.-
,_>
\
\‘~ \ \
\S \\\\\
\\ ~~
._ _.. -~ “\
\\\\\
‘ \
\ (‘f-v" v . \ _ “QM \ v _ k
'NrIxNvua NIItvfNaa
86 POLITICAL HISTORY.
The turmoil grew thicker and louder, and the voice of remon~
strance turned to angry, desperate threat of everlasting resist
ance, when the odious Grenville ministry fell and the Rocking-
ham Cabinet took its place. It had an ear for colonial plaint,
and Franklin* was there to ﬁll it with his wisely weighed
* Grenville. “Do you think it right that America should be protected by this
country and pay no part of the expense P ”
Franklin. “ That is not the case : the colonies raised, clothed and paid during the
last war (with France for Canada and Louisiana) 25,000 men and spent many mil-
lions of pounds.”
Grenville. “ Were you’ not reimbursed by parliament ? ”
Franklin. “Only what, in your opinion, we had advanced beyond our propor-
tion, and it was a very small part of what we spent. Pennsylvania spent ,6 500,000
and got back £60,000.”
Grenville. “ Do you think the people of America would submit to pay a stamp
duty, if it were moderated?” ' '
Franklin. “ N 0; never. They will never submit to it.”
Grenville. “ May not a military force carry the Stamp Act into execution?”
Franklin. “ Suppose one were sent to America; they will ﬁnd nobody in arms,
what can they do? They cannot force a man to take stamps who chooses to do
without them. They will not ﬁnd rebellion ; they may, indeed, make one.”
Grenville. “ How would the Americans receive a future tax, imposed on the same
principle with that of the Stamp Act?”
Franklin. “ just as they do this; they will not pay it.” _
Grenville. “ What will be the opinion of the Americans on the resolution of
parliament asserting the right to tax them?” '
Franklin. “ They will think it unconstitutional and unjust.”
Grenville. “ How would they receive'an internal regulation connected with the tax? ”
Franklin. “ It would be objected to. When aids to the crown are wanted they
are, according to the old established usage, to be asked of the assemblies, who will,
as they always have done, grant them freely. They think it extremely hard that a
body in which they have no representation should make a merit of giving what is
not its own, but theirs.” '
Townsend. “ Is not the post-oﬂice which they have long received a tax as well as
regulation i‘ ” _
Franklin. “No; the money paid for postage of letters is a remuneration for
service done.”
Townsend. “ If a small tax were levied, would they submit? ”
Franklin. “ They will oppose it to the last. The people will pay no internal tax
imposed by parliament.” ,
Grenville. “ But suppose the internal tax to be laid on the necessaries of life? ”
Franklin. “ I do not know a single article imported into the northern colonies
but what they can do without or make themselves. The people will work and spin
for themselves in their own houses. _In three years there may be wool and manu-
factures enough.”-Condensed from Bancroﬂ, vol. v., 430-433.
THE UNITED STATES. 37
words of remonstrance and counsel. The Stamp Act was re-
pealed March 18, I766, and a thrill of joy was felt throughout
colonial America. Liberty Tree in Boston was lighted with
lanterns: South Carolina voted Pitt, the Whig leader in the
House of Commons, a statue; Virginia an obelisk to the king.
The resolutions and address of the ﬁrst American Congress,
which had called a halt in parliament, were thus being rever-
berated through the colonies.
AN AMERICAN PART l/l—But joy was soon turned to
sorrow. Pitt left the Commons and went into the House of
Lords, as Earl of Chatham. This brought the odious Charles
Townsend to the front again in the Commons, and he was at his
old scheme of American taxation, this time in a form even more
objectionable than the Stamp Act. An ‘export tax was to be
collected on all goods sent to America. Any American assem-
bly which dared to discuss the measure or appoint delegates to
a convention or congress whose object was to remonstrate
against it or to take further steps toward colonial union, was to
be regarded as seditious, and if need be dispersed. Again the
colonies were in a ferment. This time the sentiment of union
and independence was deeper and bolder. Every colony agreed
to resist to the utter'most the claim of the parliament. The
result was a partial repeal of the obnoxious act, but the danger
was not wholly removed. What had been all along a patriotic
public opinion was now becoming an anti—English or American
party. The demand becameispeciﬁc for a Union and a Con-
gress, and it was urged that such a union, ﬁrm and perpetual,
would be a sure foundation for freedom and the great basis .
of every public blessing. All the colonies were enjoined to '
prepare to act as joint members of the Grand American Com-
monwealth.
TEA ACT AND A CONGRESS—The Tea Act of I773
was an effort to tax the colonists for the beneﬁt of a mere
trading company. The mighty surge of passion now plainly
meant resistance. ' The demand was for a “ Congress of Ameri-
can States to frame a bill of rights or form an Independent
State, an American Commonwealth.” Thus thundered the Press
88 POLITICAL HISTORY.
throughout the colonies. “ Union, Union, was the ﬁrst, the last
hope for America.” The contents of the Boston tea-ships were
emptied in the harbor. Those for Philadelphia put back with-
out unloading. Those‘for Charleston landed their contents to
have them perish in the cellars. The ministry had chosen the
least effective way of governing, and the most effective way of
uniting the colonies. Louder than ever cried the Press; “No
time is to be lost; a Congress or meeting Of the American
States is indispensable, and what the people wills shall be
effected” (I773). The predicament of parliament was getting
more desperate every day. It must recede, or coerce the deﬁant
colonists. >The Boston Port Act ( I 774) was coercive. Now,
said Samuel Adams, “Not only common danger, bondage and
disgrace, but national truth and honor, conspire to make the
colonists resolve to stand or fall together.” On the ﬂag ﬂoating
over the popular assemblies which gathered everywhere was the
legend “Union and Liberty.” Wrote Ezra Stiles, “If oppres-
sion proceeds despotism may force an annual congress; and a
public spirit of enterprise may originate an American Magna
Charta and a Bill of Rights, supported by such intrepid and
persevering importunity as even sovereignty may hereafter
judge it not wise to withstand. There will be a Runnymede in
America.”* A population of two and a half million colonists
were in action, moving steadily forward, marching together
toward an end which Providence had marked out for them.
Plans for a Congress were well under way. Delegates were
being selected and instructed, and the talk of Independence,
Union and force was universal. The calm Washington said in
the Virginia Convention, “I,will raise one thousand men, subsist
them and equip them at my own expense, and march myself at
their head for the relief of Boston.” ‘i At ten o’clock, Sept.
5, I 774, delegates from twelve colonies (Georgia did not elect)
met at Carpenters’ Hall, Philadelphia, and began the Sessions of
* Holeme’s Life of Stiles. The time of the writing was July 1, 1774.
1' August, 1774, Works jobz Adams, ii., 360. Lynch of South Carolina said to
John Adams this was the most eloquent speech that ever was made.

“
\s
“{§~~E
‘-
I
it
' _\
‘ %\“\‘
\E‘ ‘Q
“s \\
$-
\ .' r
\ ‘ r I i '
.\\\\\\\‘I- ~
‘\ \
\\\§\\\\\ \1\\\\
‘\T\\\_\ \{\\\\
\' CRETE}?

'HOEI‘L‘IVH NOISOtI NI VELL .dO NOLLDHHISEICI
\\ \ v .
‘.\\ \Q‘w
\\
7 I H ' l— _-_J!‘ .

89
9'0 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
the First Continental Congress.* They came well instructed
and full of the work in hand, literally forced together by a
common grievance. The. spectacle was one calculated to im-
press any beholder. Differing in religion, commercial interests,
in everything dependent on climate and labor, in usages and
manners, and swayed by prejudices, even quarreling about
boundaries, the colonies found themselves in one representative
body, and the exponent of a power that was to be felt throughout
the civilized worldij _
CONGRESS AND UNION—“To petition for redress, to
restore harmony between Great Britain and America.” On this
basis the Congress started, with Peyton Randolph as president.
“ Each colony should have one vote; ” this after animated de-
bate. The Congress sat with closed doors. Word came that
Gage was ﬁring on Boston. This nerved the members. Gallo-
way’s Tory plan for governing the colonies as dependencies of
Great Britain was rejected, and the vote showed that the Whigs
had control of the Congress. A resolution of sympathy with,
and approval of, the conduct of the Massachusetts people was
* The colonial Congress of 1765 at New York was properly speaking a conven-
tion. So of that at Albany in 1754.
1- The delegates were, in the order of their choosing by the colonies:
Rhode Island, Stephen Hopkins, Samuel Ward.
Massachusetts, Thomas Cushing, Samuel Adams,- John Adams, Robert Treat
Paine.
Maryland, Matthew Tilghman, Thomas Johnson, Robert Goldsborough, William
Paca, SamuelChase.
Connecticut, Eliphalet Dyer, Roger Sherman, Silas Deane.
New Hampshire, John Sullivan, Nathaniel Folsom.
Pennsylvania, Joseph Galloway, Samuel Rhoades, Thomas Mifﬂin, Charles
Humphries, John Morton, George Ross, Edward Riddle.
New Jersey, James Kinsey, William Livingstone, John Dehart, Stephen Crane,
Richard Smith. ' '
Delaware, Caesar Rodney, Thomas McKean, George Reed.
South Carolina, Henry Middleton, John Rutledge, Thomas Lynch, Christopher
Gadsden, Edward Rutledge.
Virginia, Peyton Randolph, Richard Henry Lee, George Washington, Patrick
Henry, Richard Bland, Benjamin Harrison, Edmund Pendleton.
North Carolina, William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, Richard Caswell.
New York, James Duane, John Jay, Philip Livingston, Isaac Low, William
Floyd, Henry Wisner, John Alsop, John Herring, Simon Boerum.
THE UNITED STATES. 91
passed and ordered to be sent to Gage. On October I4, 1774,
the celebrated Bill of Rights was agreed upon. With the excep-
tion of two articles it was adopted unanimously. It was passed
with the hope that it would lead to a permanent colonial union,
self-supporting, self-governing, yet a union unbroken in its con-
nection with England. The next step was coercive. The Con-
gress agreed to a great American association (October 20) to
regulate commercial intercourse with Great Britain. It consisted
of fourteen articles, and the covenant was in these words: “We
do for ourselves and the inhabitants of the several colonies,
whom we represent, ﬁrmly agree and associate under the sacred
ties of virtue, honor and love of country.” It looked to non-
importation, non-exportation and non-consumption of English
merchandise as a means of compelling the restoration of Amer—
ican rights. It struck directly at the slave trade. It agreed on
non—intercourse with any colony that violated the articles of the
association, holdingit as “ unworthy the rights of freemen and
as inimical to the liberties of their country.” This compact for
the preservation of American rights, this “league of the conti-
nent which ﬁrst expressed the sovereign will of a free nation in
America,” may be justly regarded as the commencement of the
American Union.* Its members had no hope that their actions
would prove acceptable to England. They therefore adjourned,
privately advising one another to prepare for the worst and to be
looking after sinews of war and methods of defence. Fixing
the 10th of May, 1775, as the time for a second Congress, it dis-
solved on October 26, I 774. Its work was ratiﬁed in the entire
twelve colonies with a heartiness and unanimity which showed
it“ The signature of the association by the members of the Congress may be
considered as the commencement of the American Union.”-—Hz'ldretlz, iii., p. 46.
“Among all the original associates in the memorable league of the continent in
1774, which ﬁrst expressed the sovereign will of a free nation in America, he
(Washington) was the only one remaining in the general government.”—President
jokn Adams, December 22, I799.
“ It was an embodiment of the sentiment of Union and of the will of the people
on the subject of their commercial relations—the ﬁrst enactment, substantially, of a
general law for America. For nearly two years the instrument was termed “ The
Association of the United Colonies."—Frot/zz'ngkam’s Rise qf t/ze Rqpublz'c, p. 374.
92 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
how deeply the sentiment of union was laid and how all-pervad-
ing it was. The States of Greece, after centuries of existence,
never reached the dignity thus attained by the American col-
onies, to wit, that of a federal council habitually directing and to
be habitually obeyed. The Whigs saw in the union a sentiment
crystallized into law and power. The Tories saw in it only an
ebullition, a rope of sand. It was at least such a thing, said
Richard Stockton, “ as would repel force by force if the British
government should attempt to execute its acts by force.” The
doings of the Congress were rejected by the king and parlia-
ment, and force was agreed upon.
SECOND CUNGRESS—Nearly the same members as com-
posed the ﬁrst Congress assembled in Independence Hall, May 10,
I 77 5. All its acts looked to a closer colonial union. But up came
the question of sovereignty. What is its source, what its limit?
Whence does it come, where does it stop? The answer would in-
volve the real principle of government. The provincial assembly
had been a great training school. It was, tacitly at least, agreed that
the people were the source of sovereignty, that it was theirs to
command, to institute organic law, to establish public authority,
to compel obedience. On this foundation rose the American
superstructure of permanent, federal government. It was not a
shock to the architects, but in ﬁtting the principle to practical
union much difficulty would be experienced, many surrenders
would have to be made, for, be it known, the colonies had as yet
few elements of union in themselves. The impelling thing was a
common danger. The vigor, power, beauty, advantage, pride of
union were things to be unknown to them, or only guessed at,
till the panoply of union had been over them for a little time.
The second great question was defence. Boston was besieged.
Washington was made commander-in-chief of all armies raised
or to be raised for the defence of America by unanimous ballot
on June 15, I 775. Thus began an American army. Franklin
submitted a plan of confederation and perpetual union under the
name of “United Colonies of North America.”* Lord North'
* This plan was submitted July 21, 1775 . It was not acted on at this session, but
was largely incorporated in the Articles of Confederation.
THE UNITED STATES. . 93
had weakened a little and submitted a plan by which he thought
peace might be brought about. It was submitted to Franklin,
Jefferson, John Adams and Richard Henry Lee. Their report,
repudiating it, was adopted by the Congress July 31. The col-
onies deliberately chose the hazards of war rather than surrender
their ancient right of self-government. North hoped to deal
with them as separate units. They resolved to be dealt with only
as a bundle of units—a nation. Postal communication was estab-
lished from New Hampshire to Georgia; two persons were ap-
pointed to act as joint treasurers of the colonies ; other defensive
measures followed. Then Congress adjourned (August 1) till
September 5. The nearer war came, the more they shrank from
it, at least the more cautious they became. Tory sentiment was
active. Every step taken must be a sure one. The adjourn—
ment would give time to hear from the colonists, and especially
to hear from the last memorial to the king. By the 13th of
September the Congress was in full session again, with Georgia
represented. From this time on the union was called “The
Thirteen United Colonies.” The king’s reply to the memorial
came back in the shape of a proclamation for suppressing rebel-
lion and sedition, for, said he, “It would be better to totally
abandon the colonies than to admit a single shadow of their
doctrines.” The wheels of Providence were now in swiftest
motion. Lexington and Concord had been fought in April,
Ticonderoga in May, Bunker Hill in June. South Carolina had
been warned‘ to resist all attempts to occupy Charleston, and
Virginia encouraged to defy Lord Dunmore to the uttermost.
A naval code was created (November 17). Every measure was
now for offensive war, not defensive. The press took up the
idea of independence. The thought of union, as a dependency
of Britain, was gone. “A Grand Republic of the American
United Colonies, which will, by the blessing of heaven, soon
work out our salvation and perpetuate the liberties, increase the
wealth, the power and the glory of this western world;” this
was the popular thought. Ten years had worked the idea of
union into an actual “ Continental Association.” Would it take
the idea of independence as long to work into actual independ-
94 ‘ POLITICAL HISTORY.
ence P The Tories were numerous in the local assemblies, ‘and
active. They could retard action,- if not prevent it.
DECLARA TION OF INDEPENDENCE—The Congress
was proceeding in matters of peace and war as though “The
United Colonies” were one political power. To the encourage-
ment of powerful sentiment had been added the conﬁdence of
victory in armed conﬂict. New Hampshire, South Carolina and
Virginia were recommended by Congress to form local ‘govern-
ments. This was a step which looked directly to independence.
On New Year Day, 1776, Washington'unfurled the “ Flag of Thir-
teen Stripes,” as the ﬂag of the United Colonies, and arrayed it
as the symbol of national power against the far-famed banner of
St. George. From this time till June the Congress was busy
with questions of war and ﬁnance. Its acts were those of a de—
termined and active revolutionary government. But it was all
the while being\petitioned to cut the chain which bound the col-
onies to England, and which was hampering their individual and
concerted action. It therefore recommended to all the colonies
to form local governments, independent of charters,rroyal gov—
ernors, and every English restriction. On June 7, 1776, Rich-
ard Henry Lee moved for Independence, a Foreign Alliance, and
a Confederation. John Adams seconded the motion. A com-
mittee was formed on Independence, composed of Thomas Jef—
ferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and
Robert R. Livingston, and they were given till July to report.
A committee of one from each colony was also formed on Articles
of Confederation. By the last of June it could be said that op-
position to Independence, in every colony except New York,
had ceased ; at least twelve colonies had instructed their delegates
in Congress to vote for a declaration. And these delegates were
present in the Congress on July I, when it took up the resolution
on Independence, or rather the report of the Committee on Inde-
pendence. Four days of debate and amendment brought forth
the Declaration of Independence as agreed upon by the delegates
from twelve States (July 4, I776)—New York delegates not vot-
ing under her instructions. It was ordered to be authenticated
by the signatures of John Hancock, President, and Charles
l l
mu 1
\ l
l mu ill!“ 7
‘ ("j y‘ ; t , , ‘I v |lI\
\ l 1' 4"!‘
illm


_ V_ _._
COPYRIGHT Ilcum


___-—
—— r.
“ramming—uni.‘
HOUSE IN WHICH THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
WAS WRITTEN, AT PHILADELPHIA.
CARPENTER’S HALL, PHILADELPHIA,
WHERE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS
MET.
95
96 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
Thomson, Secretary, sent out to the State assemblies, and read
at the head of the army. On July 9, the convention of New
York resolved to support it. By August 2, it was engrossed
and ready for the signatures of the members.* The high honor
of having been its author is due to Jefferson, for the changes
made in his draft, though numerous, did not alter its tone nor
general character. The equally high honor of having been its
strongest champion in the Congress belongs to John Adams.
Said Jefferson to Daniel Webster, “ John Adams was our Colos-
sus on the ﬂoor.- He was not graceful, nor elegant, nor remark-
ably ﬂuent, but he came out occasionally with a power of thought
and expression that moved us from our seats.” 1' And now that
“ the greatest question has-been decided which ever was debated
in America, and a greater perhaps never was or will be decided
among men,” The United Colonies were decreed a political
unit of the United States of America. The Declaration was
proclaimed everywhere among the people as the inestimable
title-deed of their liberties, and they received it with speech,
salute, hon-ﬁre and general rejoicing. It seemed as if a decree
promulgated from heaven. See Declaration, page 151.
WHAT [T DID—Before the Declaration was submitted to a
vote, a test resolution was laid before the Congress (July 2, 1776)
as follows : “ That these United Colonies are and of right ought
to be free and independent States ; that they are absolved from all
allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection
between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be
totally dissolved.” Twelve colonies united in adopting it. This
assured the passage of the Declaration. It was its preamble, as
it were. Observe that in it the word “ Colonies” is dropped,
* There is much uncertainty about the signing of the Declaration. The engrossed
copy, signed on August 2, still exists in the oﬁice of the Secretary of State. Jeffer-
son has given the impression that it was generally signed on July 4, but this copy of
it is not known to exist. John Adams wrote 'on the 9th of July, “ As soon as an
American seal is prepared I conjecture the Declaration will be superscribed by all
the members.” Now, a committee composed of Franklin, John Adams and Jeffer-
son, was appointed by Congress to prepare a device for the Seal of “ The United
States of America,” after the Declaration had passed, probably on the 5th of July.
1 Cam's’ Lg'fe qf I/Vebster, vol. i., 589.
THE UNITED STATES. 97
never to be taken up again, and the word “ States ” * substituted.
So the Declaration was “ The Declaration by the Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress Assembled,” and
the conclusion is: “Therefore we the Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress Assembled,” etc. The steps
toward national birth were the ripening of public sentiment into
a conviction that a common country was necessary, a delegation
of power by the colonies for that purpose, a preliminary resolu-
tion declaring the colonies independent States, a declaration to
that effect, a ratiﬁcation of that declaration by the States. Thus
the United Colonies by their joint act. passed into “ The United '
States.” The Declaration has been called the fundamental act
of Union]L It was the embodiment of the public will as a source
of authority, when it was the will of the people composing one
nationI It established Union as a fundamental law. The old
law was the law of diversity. It transformed the sentiment of
nationality into a fact—the new birth was that of a nation, a
country. As colonies, each had a State of its own, and could
have had, in one way or another. But only by creating a law
high over all, only by ordaining and establishing something out
of that supremacy which resided in all the people, could a union,
a nation, a country, come. The Declaration announced. to all
nations that a new political sovereignty had arisen, whose work-
ings internally were all right, whose external workings sought
recognition. The colonist was true to his colony, yet he
never hesitated in his allegiance to the king. He ever claimed
and was ever proud of the rights of a British subject. Now
he was equally true to his Colony (the State), but the
*The title of “ The United States of America” was formally assumed in the
Articles of the Confederation, when they came to be adopted. But it was in 115:.‘
without formal enactment from the date and adoption of the Declaration of Inde-
pendence. On the 9th of September, 1776, it was ordered that all continental com-
missions and all other instruments, where the words “ United Colonies ” had been
used, the style should be altered to the “ United States.”-- journals, ii., 349.
1' Writing: If Madison, iii., 482.
I“ In our complex system of polity the public will, as a source of authority,
may be the wilI of the people as composing one nation.”-—-Madz'son’s' Writings, iii.,
479-
7
93 POLITICAL HISTORY.
allegiance which was to the king or to Great Britain was trans-
ferred to the new political unit, the United States. For hundreds
of years the contention had been for the doctrine of the equality
of the human race. The Declaration clothed this abstract truth
with vitalizing power. “ We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these
rights governments are instituted among men deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever
any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is
the right of the people to alter or abolish it and institute new
government, laying its foundation on such principles and organ-
izing its powers in such form as shall to them seem most likely
to effect their safety and happiness.” This is the American
theory expressed as Buckle says : “In words the memory of which
can never die.” To maintain it the battles of the revolution were
fought, and to build on it a worthy superstructure of government
and law was the work of the fathers of the constitution.
NATURE OF THE COJVGRESS—The Continental Con-
gress, for by this name it got to be known, continued to be the
National Government in fact, and conducted National affairs till
the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, March, I 781, near
the close of the Revolutionary war. There was no change in its
construction, except that the delegates to it were appointed by
the State legislatures, as soon as the States had organized State
governments, which they made haste to do, under the recom—
mendations of the Congress of I776.* The powers of the Con-
* New Jersey adopted a State Constitution July 2, 1776, which went into full
operation, and the government thus formed lasted for sixty-eight years.
Delaware adopted a Constitution and form of government (Sept. 20, I776) which
lasted for sixteen years.
Maryland agreed on a Declaration of Rights, Nov. 3, 1776, and on the 8th, upon
a Constitution, which was not changed for seventy-ﬁve years.
Pennsylvania framed a Constitution Sept. 28, I776,_ which terminated its charter.
But it was not generally received. Owing to division, the State officers were sup-
ported in their authority by a Committee of Congress, till the amended Constitu-
tion of 1790.

INDEPENDENCE HALL.
100 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
tinental Congress were nowhere deﬁned or limited. They in-
cluded power to declare war and make peace, to raise armies
and equip navies, to form treaties and alliances with foreign
nations, to contract debts, and do all other acts of a sovereign
government which were essential to the safety of the United
States. No Colony, or State, disputed the powers thus assumed
and exercised. They originated from necessity and were only
limited by events. Revolutionary though they were, the Con-
gress in their exercise was supported by the people, and there
was no other authority to question its acts. It was evident that
when the dangers of war had passed, when the public liberties and
independence of all the States had been assured, and when peace
had dawned, these extraordinary powers of the Congress would
have to give way to something more certain and better under-
stood. And right here arose a momentous question. In relax-
ing the control of Congress, there was danger that the Union
which existed by reason of the Congress would be dissolved, and
that the States would drift back into independent communities,
without a central head, with no common system, with discordant
local interests, with rivalries and jealousies as to boundaries, com-
merce, manufactures, and institutions. Hard as had been the
trial of the Revolution, here was something calculated to stir
deeper apprehensiomand tax more severely the genius of states-
men.
AR T [ CLES OF C ONFEDERA T [ ON.-—As these Articles,
ﬁnally adopted by all the States, March, I 781, were the begin-
ning of a government more speciﬁc than that of the Congress
which had'carried on the Revolution thus far, yet not so speciﬁc
as that formed by the Constitution of 1787, they can be best ex-
plained in connection with the latter. As the Congress led to
North Carolina adopted a Constitution, Oct. 18, 1776, which lasted for sixty-nine
years. .
Georgia adopted a Constitution Feb. 5, I777, lasting eight years.
New York adopted a Constitution, April 20, 1777. ~
Of the six States which adopted constitutions and forms of government before
the Declaration of Independence, South Carolina amended hers in 1778, Virginia
in 1829, Rhode Island and Connecticut did not displace their charters for many
oyears, New Hampshire in 1784, Massachusetts in 1780 and 1821.
THE UNITED STATES. ‘ _ 101
the Articles of Confederation, so the Articles of Confederation
led to the Constitution. _“ States” got to be a deﬁnitive, well-
understood term under the Articles. They were “Articles of
Confederation and Perpetual Union between the States” (men-
tioning them all). “ The style of this Confederacy shall be The
United States of America,” Art. I. For this reason, also, we
prefer to treat of the Articles in our next chapter, which con-
cerns the ﬁner pieces of our fabric—the States. But as the war
came to an end under the government of the Articles of Con-
federation, it must be understood that “The United States of
America,” which solemnized the peace of 1783, and accepted of
the cessions of British territory, was the only power then existing
which could do these National acts, and bind all the States by its
authority.
FURTHER BUILDING—The war of the American Revo-
lution resulted in the treaty of Sept. 3, 1783, signed at Paris. By
it Great Britain relinquished all her “ claims to the government,
proprietary and territorial rights ” of the United States (naming
the thirteen), and acknowledged them “ to be free, sovereign and
independent States.” It further ceded all the territory south of
the Great Lake line, northward (in general) of 31° N. lat., and
westward to the Mississippi, to the United States. Those pre-
tentious charters and grants from the Crown, which ran through
from the Atlantic to the Paciﬁc, had now for their western limit
the “ Father of Waters.” The territory of the United States lay
between the Atlantic and Mississippi. The right of Spain (for-
merly France) to all beyond, was recognized.
STATE O IVNERSHIR—But through this territory, before
it was ceded, ran the titles of the Colonies or States. Their
claims became a source of trouble long before the date of the .
treaty. Thus Connecticut, whose charter possessions extended
indeﬁnitely to the west, had colonized in the Wyoming Valley,
Pa, and was exercising a disputed jurisdiction as early as 1769;
so also in the Northwest, in what became the “ Western Reserve
of Connecticut.” Virginia and New York had clashed, for a
similar reason, both their boundaries being limitless to the west.
So New York and Massachusetts had had trouble, and several
102 . POLITICAL HISTORY OF
other States. This whole matter of State ownership and juris—
diction westward came up in a conspicuous and dangerous form
when the Articles of Confederation were before the States for
ratiﬁcation. Some of the States refused to ratify till the question
of western lands was disposed of. Lord North made much of
this delay, and pretended to see in this land subject a perpetual
source of disagreement and a ﬁnal refusal to establish a Union
under the Articles. It was not a new subject, for the conserva—
tive Dickinson, of Pennsylvania, had introduced it into the Con-
gress and insisted upon its being settled satisfactorily before that
body passed the Declaration of Independence. As to their own
boundaries, there was no controversy with Pennsylvania, Dela—
ware, New Jersey, Maryland, New Hampshire, and Rhode Isl-
and, but the remaining seven States were deeply concerned, for
theirs were the charters running to the Mississippi or the Paciﬁc.
The former States took the ground that any unoccupied, unde-
ﬁned territory wrested from a common enemy by the blood and
treasure of the thirteen United Colonies, ought to be considered
as common property, subject to be parcelled out by Congress
into free, convenient, and independent governments. On these
grounds Maryland refused to ratify the Articles of Confederation
until an Article was added, securing the Western domain for the
common beneﬁt. Virginia entered into furious defence of her
magniﬁcent territory, embracing Kentucky and parts of Ohio,
Indiana and Illinois. There must be concession somewhere or
no Articles of Confederation. The question must be put out of
the way before a closer Union could be assured. To be sure, the
land was not yet conquered from Great Britain, but should it be,
it were well to have the matter settled. New York was the ﬁrst
to move. By resolution of Feb. 19, I780, she agreed to relin—
quish her right to unoccupied territory for the common beneﬁt.
Congress, mindful of the importance of Union, and “to their
very existence as a free, sovereign, and independent people,”
advised (Sept. 6, 1780) similar surrenders by the other States,
and on Oct. 10 resolved that out of the lands thus ceded should
be formed States with the same rights of sovereignty, freedom,
and independence as those possessed by the original States.
THE UNITED STATES. 103
Through the inﬂuence of Madison, Virginia agreed to surrender
her western domain, and so of the others. Thus the leading
obstacle to the ratiﬁcation of the Articles of Confederation was
removed. When the land became theirs by the terms of the
treaty of I 78 3, would these States keep their pledges?
ADFUSTMENT—New York was prompt to keep hers.
Choosing the meridian of 79° 55’ as the limit of westward occu-
pancy, she formally ceded all her domain west of that to the
United States for the common beneﬁt, on March I, I 784. This
was but a small patch of 316 square miles which afterwards
went to Pennsylvania. Her cession was worthless without the
consent of Massachusetts, who claimed clear through. (See
Massachusetts, below.) But New York still disputed with New
Hampshire the prize of the territory which afterwards became
Vermont. This prize, after much contention, and some blood-
shed, she relinquished in 1790, and took her present limits and
titles.
Virginia followed New York March I, I784. Her cession
was of that part of the great Territory, afterwards known as the
“ Territory of the Northwest,” * lying between 41° north latitude
and the southern border of Kentucky. That part of her cession
north of the Ohio, according to its terms, entered into and
formed a part of the States of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. The
part south of the Ohio afterwards became Kentucky.
Massachusetts curtailed her indeﬁnite claims April 19, I 785, by
relinquishing her right to the small bit of ground just west of
the New York boundary, which was then, Jan. 3, 1792, given
to Pennsylvania. She held her Maine possessions till 1820,
* The “ Territory of the Northwest” was organized under the ordinance of Con-
tinental Congress of July I3, 1787, which ordinance is regarded as a model, both as
to its text and display of the principles of civil, religious and political liberty. It is
popularly ascribed to Jefferson, but’ was written by Nathan Dane, of Beverly, Mass.
Article VI. of this ordinance reads: “ There shall be neither slavery nor involun-
tary servitude in said Territory otherwise than in punishment of crimes whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted.” This clause afterwards became noteworthy
as showing wherein the Congress of the Confederation had exercised the right to ex-
clude slavery from the Territories. Its language was copied in the Missouri Com-
promise affair, 1819-20; in the Wilmot Proviso, 1846, and in the XIII. amendment
to the constitution, I865. -
104; POLITICAL HISTORY OF
when they were surrendered in order that Maine might become
a State in the Union. In 1855 the district known as the “ Bos—
ton Corner” was ceded to New York, and in 1861, by ex-
changes with Rhode Island, both these States got their present
limits.
Connecticut under her ostentatious claims to western do-
mains had sent out strong colonies into Pennsylvania and the
northwest. Her claim to Pennsylvania soil was a matter for
judicial determination. In order to quiet titles in the northwest,
she, Sept. 14, I 786, relinquished her claim to everything west of
a line drawn due north and south, 120 miles west of the Penn~
sylvania line. This left her a “reserve” 120 miles wide. On
May 30, 1800, she yielded all territory and jurisdiction west of
herpresent limits, reserving whatever right of soil she may have
had as a protection to those who held title from her.
South Carolina ceded her claim to a strip of territory only
twelve miles wide, lying south of 35° north latitude, and extend-
ing along the southern borders of North Carolina and Tennessee,
to the Mississippi, on Aug. 9, I787.
North Carolina adjusted her western border, Feb. 25, I 790,
by ceding the territory which afterwards became Tennessee.
Georgia made a most important cession of the territory west
of her present western boundary, June 16, 1802.
These cessions of their lands, and surrenders of their claims to
lands, by the original States, fulﬁlled their pledges to thus dis-
' pose of them for the common beneﬁt, made before the Articles
of Confederation‘were' adopted, and in order that they might be
adopted. They quieted the title of the United States to all the
territory, outside of the limits of the States, ceded by Great
Britain in I 783. They put this part of the fruits of the war at
the disposal of all the people. The United States could now
begin to enjoy the full fruitions of that treaty. The States would
. cease their clamors and jealousies about old charter boundaries,
and the general government could go on with its great work of
State building and the acquisition of new territory. The old
States had done nobly in making these surrenders. They proved
by them the depth of their interest in the new experiment of
THE UNITED I STATES. 105
self-constituted federal government, and the extent of their de-
sire not to let selﬁsh love of acres and limitless boundaries stand
in the way of permanent national union, peace and progress.
As States they could not contribute further to the geographic
framework of the nation, nor to matters of title. The govern-
ment as a whole must now buy or conquer its own rough stones
and timbers.
THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE—And it went about the
work right speedily. The English cession of 1783 left intact
the Spanish'claim to Florida and Louisiana, east of the Missis-
sippi, and beyond that river the United States owned nothing,
the boundary being the middle of the stream. We have seen
how France ceded her Louisiana to Spain in 1763, and what it
meant. Foreign possession of the mouth of the Mississippi was
not tolerable. Nor was similar possession of its western shores,
and to its middle, any more tolerable. Both were an annoyance
and a menace, as had been abundantly proved time and again,
and as would continue to be proved, if not removed. In 1795 a
treaty had been made with Spain which gave the United States
commercial rights at New Orleans. In 1802 Spain gave notice
that these rights had ceased. Alarm spread all along the line
of the river. It was looked upon as a Spanish trick, instigated
by France. But what was the consternation when it was discov-
ered that two years before Spain had parted with Louisiana to
France, though the distinctive act of cession had not yet taken
place. The treaty of cession had been a secret one, carried out
in the interest of Napoleon. Though we doubt not it was a
shrewd move on the part of France to further cripple England
by ﬁrst getting back possession of this immense domain and
then turning an honest penny by selling to the United States,
thus helping the creation of a great commercial rival to England
on this continent, in accordance with the French theory of 1763,
yet Jefferson, then President, chose to look upon it as an attempt
of France to rival England directly. He therefore sent Monroe
to the aid of Livingston, minister to France, ﬁrst to protest that
if France took possession the United States would be forced into
an alliance with England against her, ‘and, second, to sound
.106 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
France as to the probability of a purchase. Probably the latter
was what France wanted. She was needy, was about to war
with England, and was in no position to be hampered with such
a possession. Driving the best bargain she could, going up in
her price from $13,000,000 to $15,000,000, a sale was consum-
mated by treaty of April 30, 1803, ratiﬁed by the Senate Oct. 20,
1803, and by a resolution of the House to carry it into effect.*
Of the $15,000,000, to be paid, $37 50,000 were withheld to be
disbursed, under the French Spoliation bill, to pay the losses
Americans had suffered in their commerce at the hands of the
French. By this magniﬁcent purchase the United States got a
gulf frontage east of the Mississippi extending from that river to
Florida, though all this Spain disputed. Leaping the Missis-
sippi the country shot clear to the Paciﬁc, for the ceded territory
embraced Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska,
Oregon, Minnesota west of the Mississippi, part of Kansas, the
Territories of Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Washington, the Indian
country, and portions of Colorado and Wyomingfj“ an added
empire of 900,0001 square miles, or one larger than the entire
area of the country before. '
SPAIN CEDES FLOR]DA.—The next cession of foreign
soil was by Spain, Feb. 22, 1819. This was a—transaction almost
wholly in the interest of Spain, judged by the extent of territory
which passed. She claimed that her Florida ran to the Missis-
sippi, also that she had never recognized France’s claim to that
part of Louisiana west of the Sabine River (Texas). The United
* Owing to the opposition of the Federalists to this purchase, which they regarded
unwarranted by the constitution and as tending to increase the preponderance of the
- South in national legislation, Jefferson called the Eighth Congress together earlier
than usual for the express purpose of having it ratify the treaty of purchase and-
vindicate his procedure. He admitted that the constitution gave no power to pur-
chase foreign territory and make it a part of the Union, but claimed that when once
the deed was done, it could be validated by the nation’s ratiﬁcation.
T For the French boundaries of their Louisiana, much wider than those here
enumerated, see page 66. And this is important, for Texas was clearly in the
Louisiana of France, as the United States acknowledged when Spain came to cede
Florida. ‘
I Not counting what was afterwards conﬁrmed by the Oregon treaty of 1846,
amounting to 300,000 square miles.
THE UNITED STATES. 107
States claimed that Louisiana ran eastward to the present
boundary of Florida. To quiet everything, Spain ceded her
Florida clear to the Mississippi, for the sum of $5,000,000, and
the additional consideration that the _United States should
abandon all claim to that part of French Louisiana which lay
west of the Sabine. Thus a territory equal to six Floridas,
which had already been bought and paid for by the United
States, was surrendered to Spain, and was soon to become a part
of the Republic of Mexico. In twenty-six (1845) years it
drifted back to the United States again, as we shall see when ,
the cession of Texas is reached.
' THE OREGON T REA T ld—Away up in the Northwest the
boundary of Louisiana could not be made to ﬁt to that claimed
by Great Britain for her possessions. The United States claimed
54° 40’ N. lat. as the boundary. England claimed that it was
the Columbia River. From 1827, the disputed territory had
been held by both claimants. The Democratic party made it an
issue in their platform of 1844 to claim to 54° 40', with or without
war with England. The watchword all along the line was “ 54°
40' or ﬁght.” In the Congress of 1845—46, Calhoun, to the
great embarrassment of President Polk and the Democratic
party, proposed 49° as a compromise line. After much party
backing and ﬁlling, and long negotiation, a treaty was agreed
upon, June 15, 1846, which was ratiﬁed by the Senate, the
Whigs coming to the rescue of the President, saving him from
his party friends and the country from war. The treaty ﬁxed
49° N. lat. as, the boundary, as originally proposed by Calhoun.
This necessitated an immense cession of land—all between the
southern limit claimed by Great Britain and the 49°—to the
United States. It amounted to 308,052 square miles, and the
cession was called “The Cession by the Oregon Treaty of 1846.”
Thus were cured the defects of the treaty of purchase of 1803,
with France, and the Ashburton treaty of 1842, with Great
Britain.
ANNEXA T T ON OF T EXAS.*—-Texas had been a State of
* As Texas came directly into the Union as a State, see further about her history
in connection with the State of Texas, next article.


United State


AREA: 0
ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER
OF
TERRITORY.- ‘
PM, PM - I 1 1780101870
km 1730)‘ jwAsamm-oiv 95 i ' 54' 5! ,__2l\).
108
cani'ifuci!

10119
O
I
I
I
I
I
4'
l

109
110 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
the Republic of Mexico, but had seceded, had set up for herself
an independent republic, and was, in 1845, at war with Mexico,
though an armistice was then pending, with a view to peace. It
was deemed _an opportune moment to secure her vast domain
for the United States. Under the lead of Calhoun, a treaty of
annexation, pure and simple, was proposed, but rejected. This
was followed by another proposing her admission into the
Union, which was coupled with one for negotiation and treaty.
In this shape it passed, and Texas was admitted as a State Dec.
29, 1845. Her debt, amounting to $7,500,000, was assumed by
the United States. Besides incorporating her wonderful territory
of 318,000 square miles, with our own, she relinquished all her
claims, by virtue of her having been a member of the Mexican
Republic, to the lands west of the 27th meridian, and now in the
territory embraced by Colorado and‘ New Mexico. Her status
being that of war with Mexico, it was assumed by the United
States. Thus the country was plunged into the Mexican war,
which made the Texas experiment a very costly one in the end.
By that war, however, other vast and valuable areas were ac-
quired.
MEX] CAN CESSIOIV—The Mexican war (1846—48) which
had been going on for two years was brought-to a close by the
treaty of Feb. 2, 1848. By its terms Mexico ceded all the
territory now covered by the States of California and Nevada,
also her claims to Texas, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico, and
parts of Wyoming, Colorado and the Indian country, holding,
however, to a part of New Mexico and Arizona south of the
Gila River. The lower Rio Grande from its mouth to El Paso
was taken for the boundary of Texas. The United States paid
Mexico, for this land, $15,000,000, in ﬁve annual instalments,
and in addition assumed the claims of American citizens against
Mexico, to an amount not exceeding $ 3,2 50,000.
GADSDEN PURCHASE—The lands, above mentioned, as
reserved by Mexico south of the Gila river, were purchased by
the United States, Dec. 30, 185 3, for $10,000,000. The transac-
tion became known as the “ Gadsden Purchase.” This purchase
gave the United States a better southern boundary, and compact
TH E UNITED STATES. 111
areas between the two oceans. “Westward the course of em-
pire ” had taken its way, and the Paciﬁc front took a range of
1,343 miles, as against the Atlantic’s 2,163 miles.
ALASKA CESSION.-—-The last accession of national terri-
tory was May 28, 1867, when Russia ceded all her territory in
North America to the United States for the sum of $7,200,000.
This gave us Alaska, which is not coterminous territory, being
cut off by intervening British possessions. The policy of this
purchase was, at ﬁrst, regarded as unwise. But time has changed
sentiment respecting it. If the question were up as to the pro—
priety of its sale at the price paid for it there would be a nega-
tive response. It is, to say the least, a good pivotal and strategic
point, barren as it may be of other importance.
TERRITORIAL S UMMAR Y.-—-How look our national areas
when thrown into ﬁgures P Using estimates and round numbers
the showing is as follows:
Sq. miles. Sq. miles.
Estimated Area . . . . . . . . 1783 820,680 Gadsden Purchase. . . 1853 30,000
Louisiana Purchase . . . . 1803 899,579 Alaska Purchase. . . .1867 500,000
Florida Purchase. . . . ..1819 66,900 Grand Total W
Oregon Treaty Lands-1846 308.052 Est’d Lake & Water Surface 396,116
Texas Annexation. . . . . 1846 318,000 Sq miles 58%
Mexican Cession. . . . . 1848 522,955 Acres 2m
To all these acres the United States has undisputed title.
They are the acquisition of one hundred years of national sover-
eignty, and are exceeded by the ﬁgures of only three other em.
pires in the world—Great Britain with all her detached de—
pendencies, the Chinese Empire and Russian Empire. And
now, having seen whence our national titles sprang, having
built our country territorially, and having studied the beginnings
of our. institutions amid colonial life, let us turn to that part of
the fabric in which States comprise the artistic subdivisions and
comprise the sublime whole.
NOTE—Roman Empire, in time of Augustus, estimated by Gibbon at 1,600,000
square miles.
DAWN OF THE STATES.
THE CONFEDERATION AND ITS DEFECTS.
GOVERNMENT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
ADMITTING THE STATES.
ROM COLONY TO STAT E.-—Having taken a view
of the country in the rough, seen its titles and begin-
nings as they arose like dry land out of a multitude of
waters, caught something of that free, republican spirit
which ripened in the colonies‘ and urged perpetually
toward independence and union, and witnessed our majestic
territorial strides from Atlantic to Paciﬁc, buying where the
market was open, conquering where it was closed, let us turn to
ﬁner parts of the national fabric.
The resolution of the Continental Congress, passed May 10,
1776, suppressing royal authority in the colonies, made neces-
sary the formation of local governments, capable of answering
the ends of political society and of continuing without interrup-
tion the protection of law over property, life and public order.
These newly formed local governments, or these reformed col-
onial governments, for fortunately the political situation in many
of the colonies required but little departure from their previous
local institutions, were the true beginnings of the States. They
were spoken of as “States” in the Declaration of Independence,
and they made a near approach to States as they now are, under
the Articles of Confederation. But, though States of a Union,
they were not our States of the Union. How were they trans-
formed P
THE FIRST S T EP.——As has been seen, the Continental
Congress was the only government during the Revolution and
up until the adoption of the Articles of Confederation in 1781.
It was simply a revolutionary government, with power for any-
8 - (113)
114 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
thing or nothing, just as its acts were sanctioned or condemned
by the popular voice. It was the result of a Union on account
of public danger and not of a Union as the result of a charter
or constitution. When the danger had passed, the function of
the Congress would cease, and the Union would melt into its
' original components. There was more danger in this than in
the presence of an armed foe. Statesmen were busy at work to
prevent such a catastrophe. Before the Declaration Franklin
had proposed a scheme of Confederation. The Continental Con-
gress of I 77 5 (the Congress of the Declaration as it was called)
had raised a committee in whose hands measures for a more
permanent Union were placed. The newspapers teemed with
plans for a permanent republican government. On the 12th of
July, I 7 76, the committee of Congress reported Articles, drawn by
John Dickinson, of Pennsylvania. They did not meet the
approval of the Congress, but rather plunged it into debate over
questions of commerce, public lands, taxation, and the relative
positions of the larger and smaller States.‘ For sixteen months
the Articles were delayed. At last, November 15, 1777, an
agreement was had, and a draft of Articles, as agreed upon by
the Congress, was sent out to the States for ratiﬁcation, together
with a letter commending them as a plan “ for securing the free-
_ dom, sovereignty and independence of the United States,” as the
best that could be adapted to the circumstances of all, as “ essen-
tial to their very existence as a free people, ” and without which
they might“ soon be constrained to bid adieu to independence,
liberty and safety.” ,
Nine of the States promptly ordered their delegates in Con-
gress to ratify the Articles, which was done July, 1778. But
they were not to'be binding unless ratiﬁed by all the States.
Political languor seemed to have taken the place of that blaze
of freedom which had hitherto burned so brightly in the inchoate
States. The burdens of war pressed heavily. Congress issued
an appeal to the remaining States “to conclude the glorious
compact.” Henry Laurens, the President of Congress, wrote
despairingly to Washington: “ Where is virtue, where is patriot-
ism now, when almost every man has turned his attention to
THE UNITED STATES. 115
gain and pleasure, practising every artiﬁce of Change-alley or
Jonathan's ? ” * .
The capture of Burgoyne, October 16, 1777, and word of a
French alliance, February 6, 1778, served to stir enthusiasm
again and revive the hope of Union under fully ratiﬁed Articles.
_A few other States gave their assent, but Maryland held out.
She would not consent till the great question of public domain
was disposed of, nor did she consent till the States to whom the
valley of the Mississippi would have fallen by virtue of their
charter limits patriotically agreed _to surrender all lands which
England might cede by any treaty of peace to the United States.
All conquered, or to be conquered, lands thus made common
property, Maryland ratiﬁed February 2, 1781, and signed March
I, 1781. The revolutionary government by a Congress was at an
end. i The step taken made union ﬁrmer under the forms of the
ﬁrst American constitution. See Articles of Confederation, p. I 5 5.
WHAT THE ARTICLES DID.T——They renewed the
*Jonathan’s was a London coffee-house, the resort of speculators. Precisely why
the English applied the term to Americans is not clear. But, as thus applied, it
appears in a printed ballad on the expedition to Rhode Island, 1778, “Jonathan
felt bold, sir.” The British account of the burning of F airﬁeld, 1779, uses the
word thus: “ The troops faced about and drove Jonathan.” In the form of “ Brother
Jonathan,” the term hardly appeared till after peace had softened the asperities of war.
j'The great seal of the American Union was adopted June 20, 1782. It was
the American Eagle, holding in his right talon an olive branch, in his left a bundle
of thirteen arrows, in his beak a scroll inscribed with “E Plurz'bus Unum” (one
composed of many), and over his head an azure ﬁeld with thirteen stars. On the
reverse was an unﬁnished pyramid with an eye, having over it “Annuz't Coejﬁtzlr” (a
beginning permitted, or approved), at the base MDCCLXXVL, and underneath
“ Nor/us Ora’o Serlorum ” (a new order of ages).
Previously, June 14, 1777, Congress voted “ That the ﬂag of the United States be
thirteen stripes, alternately red and white; that the Union be thirteen stars, white,
in a blue ﬁeld, representing a new constellation. This ﬂag continued till Ver-
mont (1791) and Kentucky (1792) were admitted, when it was changed (Act of
January 13, 1794) to ﬁfteen stripes and ﬁfteen stars. It became apparent that the
increase of stripes, as new States were admitted, would throw the ﬂag out of pro-
portion. Therefore the following was passed, April 4, 1818: “ That from and after
the 4th of July next the ﬂag of the United States be thirteen horizontal stripes,
alternate red and white; that the Union be twenty stars (the then number of
States), white, in a blue ﬁeld; that, on the admission of every new State, one
star be added to the union of the ﬂag, such addition to be made on the 4th of July
next succeeding such admission.”
116 POLITICAL HISTORY OF '
pledge of theStates to Union, or rather made public and ofﬁcial
record of such pledge. They made inter-state citizenship free.
They created a Congress and deﬁned its powers, but endowed it
with no executive function. They gave the States something to
conform to. They created a tribunal to settle disputes between
the States. But the best thing they did was to confer a great
educational service through their weaknesses and defects.
WHAT T HEY DID NOT DO-.—In saying that the Ar-
ticles soon proved themselves full of glaring defects, it must not
be forgotten that the States, while colonies, had been subject to
a foreign rule whose restrictions had been severely felt and whose
assumptions had been a source of constant jealousy and alarm.
They had, naturally, nourished a spirit of resistance to all author-
_ity outside of themselves, and, having no experience of the con-
venience or necessity of a general government to care for their
common interests, they deemed the least possible delegation of
their power quite sufficient for national purposes. Therefore the
Articles created a confederation which had few powers for peace.
It could make treaties, but could not execute them; appoint am-
bassadors, but not pay their expenses; borrow money, but not
pay a dollar; make coin, but not import an ounce of bullion;
declare war and order the number of troops, but not raise a single
soldier; in short, declare anything and do nothing. It was
truly a feeble thread on which to string thirteen States and hold
them in bonds of union. Its unﬁtness as a frame of government
for a free, enterprising and industrious people, so manifest at the
start, grew more and more so, till it ﬁnally lost all vigor and re-
spect and tottered to its fall. Should it be left to silent dissolu-
tion, or should an attempt be made to form something more
commanding and vigorous before the great interests of the Union
were crushed and buried beneath its ruins? ’
DAWN OF A CONSTITUTION—Hamilton saw the de-
fects of the Articles of Confederation and (I780) proposed a con-
vention to reform them even before they were ratiﬁed by the
States. Similar propositions were made by Pelatiah Webster in
I 781, the New York Legislature in I 782, Hamilton in Con-
gress I783, Richard Henry Lee in 1784, Governor Bowdoin in
_ THE UNITED STATES. 117
178 5 . But it required more than cold propositions and digniﬁed
discussion to overcome the indifference of the States. It re-
quired the ﬂat refusal of New Jersey to comply with an act of
Congress. It required the open offense of Massachusetts in
raising troops to crush Shay’s rebellion. It required the quarrel
between Virginia and Maryland as to the right to navigate the
waters of the Chesapeake and Potomac. This last brought a
convention to Annapolis, September II, 1786. Only ﬁve States
were represented. They did nothing respecting the point in dis-
pute; they could do nothing. But Hamilton was there, and
Madison, and Dickinson, and they saw but one way out of such
difﬁculties—that was by creating a stronger central government
and endowing it with ample powers on all such delicate subjects.
Their report suggested a call of delegates from all the States to
meet in Philadelphia, May (second Monday), 1787.
A CONS TI T U TION—Congress ‘adopted this report, Febru-
ary 21, 1787, and ordered a Convention. All the States sent
delegates except Rhode Island. On May 14, they met in Inde-_
pendence Hall, but a majority of the States not being represented
they adjourned from day to day till the 25th. Then organiz-
ing by the election of George Washington as President, they
proceeded to business. It was a memorable body. The veterans
of the revolution were there, and the wise statesmen of the times
which gave birth to the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Inde—
pendence, and the Articles of the Confederation. They were
there to remedy the defects of the past and propose a new de-
parture for the future. Franklin was there, at eighty-one. John-
son of Connecticut, Rutledge of South Carolina, and Dickinson,
had been members of the Stamp Act Congress. Seven of them
had been in the Congress of 1774. Eight of them had signed the
Declaration of Independence. Their deliberations ran through
four months, and they were carried on amid great diversity of
opinion.* The antagonisms of American society, errors of
* The sessions were held with closed doors, and the utmost secrecy was enjoined,
no member being even allowed to copy from the Convention’s Journal, which was
entrusted to Washington, and by him deposited in the State Department. It was
printed by direction of Congress in 1818.
...0(6'
9
O
O
0006..
I
r
‘
.IL
118 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
, of having had any agency in the business.
opinion and deep-rooted prejudices, local interests, State jealousies
and ambitions, and especially the matter of slavery, these all
trooped into the convention to make it a scene of furious storms,
and to threaten its disruption time and again. Even the calm
and hopeful Washington said he almost despaired of seeing a
favorable issue to the proceedings, and more than once repented
But an era of com-
promise was reached, and the work was completed on September
I 7, I 787. All the members present signed The Constitution of
the United States of America, except Edmund Randolph and
George Mason of Virginia, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts.
It was then sent to the States to be ratiﬁed by Conventions,
specially called for the purpose, and was to become operative
when so ratiﬁed by nine of the States. All the States called
Conventions and ratiﬁed, except Rhode Island and North
Carolina.* See Constitution, page 161. '
NEW GO VERNMENT—On July 2, 1788, the President of
Congress laid before that body the ratiﬁcation of the requisite
nine States. By September I 3, “a plan for putting the Con-
stitution in operation” was completed. The ﬁrst Wednesday in
January was ﬁxed for the appointment of electors; the ﬁrst
Wednesday in February for their meeting to vote for a President;
and the ﬁrst Wednesday in March as the time, and New York
as the place, for commencing proceedings under the new Con-
stitution. The necessary elections of Senators and Representa-
tives having been held, the ﬁrst Congress assembled at New
York, Wednesday, March 4, I 789, to adjourn for want of a
quorum till April 6, when the votes of the electors being counted
it was found that George Washington had been unanimously
elected President and John Adams Vice-President. On April
., ‘i
Q .5 9".
* North Carolina afterwards in a new convention held November, 1789, adopted
the Constitution, and Rhode Island by a convention held May, 1790. The debates
in the respective State Conventions over the question of ratifying took the widest
range and showed great diversity of sentiment. In only three States was the Con-
stitution adopted unanimously, New Jersey, Delaware and Georgia. In Connecticut,
Pennsylvania, Maryland and South Carolina it had large majorities. In Massa-
chusetts, New York and Virginia it had a bare majority, and in the remaining States
a small majority.
THE UNITED STATES. 1 19
30, Washington was sworn into ofﬁce, and our present form of
government was a fact.*
SENTIMENZi—In his'inaugural Washington said, “In the
important revolution just accomplished in the system of their
united government, the tranquil deliberations and voluntary con-
sent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has
resulted, cannot be compared with the means by which most
governments have been established, without some return of pious
gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future bless-
ings which the past seems to presage.”
“ The strongest government on earth” and “the only one
where every man, at the call of the law, would ﬂy to the stand-
ard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as
his own personal concern.”———_7tﬁerson’s Inaugural.
“ America has emerged from her struggle into tranquillity and
freedom, into afﬂuence and credit; and the authors of her Con-
stitution have constructed a great permanent experimental an-
swer to the sophisms and declarations of the detractors of
liberty.”—Sir Yames Machintosh.
“ To those great men who framed the Constitution and secured
the adoption of it, we owe a debt of gratitude which can scarcely
be repaid. It was not then, as it is now, looked upon, from
the blessings which, under the guidance of Divine Providence, it
has bestowed, with general favor and affection. On the contrary,
many of those pure and disinterested patriots, who stood forth
the ﬁrm advocates of its principles, did so at the expense of
existing popularity. They felt that they had a higher duty to
perform than to ﬂatter the prejudices of the people, or subserve
selﬁsh, sectional or local interests. Many of them went to their
graves without the soothing consolation that their services and
sacriﬁces were appreciated. Scorning every attempt to rise to
power and inﬂuence by the common arts of the demagogue,
they were content to trust their characters and conduct to the
deliberate judgment of posterity.”—-Story on the Constitution.
*Chancellor Livingston administered the oath of oﬂice. The President delivered
his inaugural address in the presence of both Houses of Congress, a custom which
was adhered to till Jefferson changed it.
120 _ POLITICAL HISTORY OF
“It animated freemen all over the world to resist oppression.
It gave an example of a great people not only emancipating
themselves, but governing themselves without‘ even a monarch
to control or an aristocracy to restrain them ; and it demonstrated
for the ﬁrst time in the history of the world, contrary to all the
predictions of statesmen and the theories of speculative inquirers,
that a great nation, when duly prepared for the task, is capable
of self-government ; or in other words, that a purely republican
form of government can be formed and maintained in a country
of vast extent, peopled by millions of inhabitants.”——Br0ugkam’s
Polz'iz'ml Philosophy.
“ The republican government was a success because in its
operation it met the needs of the two fundamental conditions of
American political life, diversity and union, as correlative forces
——on the one hand, the development of the Commonwealth or
State; on the other, of the union or nation.”-—-Froz‘hz'ng/zam’s
Rise 0f the Repuélz'c.
“It actually secured, for what is really a_ long period of time,
a greater amount of combined peace and freedom than was ever
before enjoyed by so large a portion of the earth’s surface.
There have been, and still are, vaster despotic empires; but never
before has so large an inhabited territory remained for more than
seventy years in the enjoyment of internal freedom and of ex-
emption from the scourge of internal war.”——Freeman’s Hz'sz‘. of
Federal Gov.
Even as Freeman wrote (I861), the Republic‘ was passing
through its severest ordeal—that of civil war; and the verdict
rendered in this supreme court of armed force was in favor of the
Constitution. All the above are wonderfully pleasing and in-
spiring pictures of potency and adaptation, yet they were not
undreamt of among the early patriot seers.
“The celestial light of the gospel was directed here by "the
ﬁnger of God; it will doubtless ﬁnally drive the long, long night
of heathenish darkness from America.- So arts and sciences will
change the face of nature in their tour from hence over the Appa-
lachian chain to the Western ocean ; and as they march through
the vast desert, the residence of wild beasts will be broken up
THE UNITED STATES. 121
and their obscure howl cease forever. Instead" of which, the
stones and trees will dance together at the music of Orpheus,
the rocks will disclose their hidden gems, and the inestimable
treasures of gold and silver be broken up. Huge mountains of
iron—ore are already discovered, and vast stores are reserved for
future generations. This metal, more useful than gold and
silver, will employ millions of hands, not'only to form the mar-
tial sword and peaceful share, alternately, but an inﬁnity of
utensils improved in the exercise of art and handicraft amongst
men. Nature through all her works has stamped authority on
this law, namely, that all ﬁt matter shall be improved to its best
purposes. Shall not, then, those vast quarries that teem with‘
mechanic stone, those for structure be piled into great cities, and
those for sculpture to perpetuate the honor of renowned heroes,
even those who shall now save their country? O ye unborn
‘inhabitants of America! should this page escape the destined
conﬂagration at the year’s end, and these alphabetical letters
remain legible, when your eyes behold the sun after he has
rolled the season round for two or three centuries more, you will
know that in Anno Domini 1758, we dreamed of your times.” *
THE OLD THIRTEEN STA T ES.-—These States had ﬁrst
colonial existence, then independent revolutionary existence
under the Congress, then united existence under the pledge of
the Confederation, and now they come to have cemented exist-
ence under the Constitution and constitutional form of govern-
ment. Their membership in the Republic dates from their rati-
ﬁcation of the Constitution by conventions chosen for the pur-
pose. These dates are: Delaware, Dec. 7, 1787; Pennsylvania,
Dec. 12, 1787; New Jersey, Dec. 18, 1787; Georgia, Jan. 2, I788;
' Connecticut, Jan. 9, I 788 ; Massachusetts, Feb. 6, 1788; Mary-
land, April 28, 1788; South Carolina, May 23, 1788; New
Hampshire, June 21, 1788; Virginia, June 25, 1788; New York,
July 26, I788 ; North Carolina, Nov. 21, I 789; Rhode Island,
May 29, 1790.
* Written by Nathaniel Ames, father of ‘Fisher Ames, in Ames’ Almanac for 17 58,
and one of the most remarkable prophecies relating to America.
122 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
THE EARLIES T T ERRI TORIES.——While yet the country
was limping along under the Confederation, it entered upon the
work of disposing of its lands acquired by the treaty of I 783.
Its ﬁrst action was by the celebrated ordinance of July 13, I787,
already alluded to, which created “The Territory Northwest of
the Ohio river” out of the Virginia cession up to 41°, and out
of all north of that parallel, ceded by Great Britain. Out of this
territory, according to the provisions of the ordinance, not less
than three‘ States were to be formed fronting on the Ohio river.
Out of all that was left, lying north of an east and west line
drawn through the southern extremity of Lake Michigan, one
or two other States were to be formed. The provisions of this
ordinance were afterwards carried out in the formation of Ohio,
Indiana, and Illinois, and so, of the remaining portion of the ter- '
ritory, were formed Michigan, Wisconsin, and that part of Min-_
nesota east of the Mississippi.
The next disposition of public domain was made by the
present government on May 26, I 790. It then erected the “Ter-
ritory south of the Ohio river,” out of cessions by Virginia and
North Carolina, and gave it a government similar to that or-
dained for the Territory northwest of the Ohio. Out of this
Territory, in due time, sprang the States of Kentucky and Ten-
nessee, though to the latter was added the strip of twelve miles
wide, ceded by South Carolina.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.‘—-All this was simply pushing
the jurisdiction of the government in a Territorial way. The
real work of State carving and building, outside of original
limits, was, however, soon to begin in earnest. But we must
ﬁrst notice that important grant which had the effect of ﬁxing
the location of the National Capital. Article I, See. 8, of the
Constitution empowered Congress “ to exercise exclusive legis-
lation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding
ten miles square) as may by cession of particular States, and
the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of
the United States.” By act of her legislature, Dec. 23, I 788,
Maryland made a cession of territory ten miles ‘square for the
above purpose. Nearly a year afterwards, Dec. 3, 1789, Vir-
THE UNITED STATES. ' 123
ginia ceded a like, or less, quantity of land for a similar purpose.
Thus the government was in possession of more than it needed
for a capital. However, it accepted both grants, July 16, 1790,
and ordained that the same should become the permanent seat
of government of the United States. In the same act the Presi-
dent was authorized to ﬁx the boundaries of the cessions so‘ as
to bring their limits within the constitutional provision of ten
miles square. This he did by proclamation, March 30, 1791.
The territory retained embraced sixty-four square miles of that
part ceded by Maryland and thirty~six of that ceded by Virginia.
Over this the government assumed control by Act of Feb. 27,
1801. But it was cut in twain. by the Potomac. Therefore, by
act of July 9, 1846, the Virginia portion was retroceded to that
State, leaving the District of Columbia and the permanent seat
of government to occupy only the Maryland cession of about
sixty-four square miles.
VERMONT FIRST—The introduction of new States makes
a curious and instructive history. Some ripened as Territories
and drifted naturally into their places as States of the Union.
Others were forced into position ere they were ready, in obedi- _
ence to a balancing principle which, at an early day, was resorted
to for the gratiﬁcation of sectional feelings and interests. ' Still
others were admitted for protective border or commercial rea-
sons. But, let it be hoped, that all were admitted for their own
advantage and that of the national government, and that now
no one would wish to lose its place in the federal arch.
The ﬁrst to link her fortunes with the “old thirteen” was
Vermont. She, above all others, had had an unfortunate terri-
torial existence, and her admission was a happy escape from
troubles which otherwise seemed unending. Claimed by Massa-
chusetts under the wonderful Plymouth charter, by New Hamp-
shire whose western limit was practically unascertained, by New
York because “ the New Netherlands," afterwards the possession
of the Duke of York, ran indeﬁnitely northeastward, and by
' France because it lay along a water Way into the St. Lawrence,
and peopled more or less by all these claimants, New Hamp-
shire had been from the earliest times a common raiding-ground
O
124 ' POLITICAL HISTORY OF
and seat of contention. The ﬁght between New York and New
Hampshire waxed so bitter that a decision was invoked from the
crown. New York won, and her line was adjudged to extend
to the Connecticut river. The folly of New York in deciding
the New Hampshire grants of lands in Vermont illegal‘stirred
up the landholders to armed resistance. There is no telling
how far the war would have been carried, for the Vermonters
were very determined, had not the revolution turned attention
in another direction. Even during the war with Great Britain
the Vermonters, January, I777, established for their territory an
independent jurisdiction under the name of “ New Connecticut or
Vermont.” Thus equipped they petitioned the Continental Con-
gress for admission into the Union, a request which was entitled
to respect, for Vermont was playing a brave and important role,
and was really as much of an ‘independent colony as any other.
But she was headed off by New York and New .Hampshire,
neither of whom were yet ready to relinquish their hold upon
her. To make matters worse Massachusetts revived her sleep-
ing claim to the soil. The plight was pitiable. No redress was
to be had of the indecisive government of the Confederation, for
it was really no government at all. The farmers again ﬂew to
arms under the lead of the intrepid Ethan Allen, and were now
more than ever determined to resist the attempt of New York
to push her authority into their midst. The British, knowing
the tardiness and negligence of the Congress of the Confederation,
and hoping that the Vermonters would soon be driven to seek
the protection of a stronger government, actually opened negotia-
tions to have them cast their lot in with theirs. But these
spirited Green Mountain men were not disloyal enough for that.
They clung closely together, kept up a government of their own,
fought bravely through the war of the revolution, and at the
peace of I78 3 constituted a State, so far as -machinery went, as
perfect as'any of the original thirteen. ‘
After the adoption of the constitution of 1787, and the forma- '
tion of the new government under it, she again petitioned for
admission. New York opposed her as before. But this time the
power of the central government was stronger. It could hear
0
THE UNITED STATES. 125
and‘ decide, and was willing to do so.’ A commission was created
to investigate and decide the conﬂict. New York was paid
$30,000 with which to quiet the titles of her citizens holding
lands in Vermont. Thereupon she withdrew all claims to juris-
diction, and by act of Feb. 18, 1791, to take effect March 4,
1791, Vermont was admitted into the Union, with all the rights
and privileges of a State. As intimated her independent State
existence became necessary as acure for the evils which had
come upon her through conﬂicting claims of ownership and
their foolish assertion, and not for any very pressing geographic
or commercial reason. The United States now embraced four-
teen States.
KENT UCK Y ’S ADMISSION—Kentucky very properly
came into the Union at an early date. She had been a dissatis-
ﬁed and dangerous territory for a long time. Her region had
been a hunting-ground and battle—ﬁeld remote from her mother
Virginia, whose protection. was quite too feeble to be of any
account. The wild, brave spirits who had found a home in the
midst of “the dark and bloody grounds” had more than once
declared that inasmuch as Virginia could give them no pro-
tection, they ought to set up a government of their own. But
they never completely severed their relations with the mother
colony or State, for the reason that they regarded the govern--
ment of the Confederation as of no more consequence to them,
in the matter of protection, than Virginia. So they drifted amid
years and years of conventions, debates and resolutions, on the
propriety of doing something toward protective organization.
At one time it looked as if the entire territory might be lost to
the Union, and a war to recover it be the consequence. Spain,
understanding the situation, secretly proposed rare commercial
favors if the territory would declare independence and start out
on a career of its own. Knowledge of this proposition stirred pub
lic sentiment to the very bottom. Two conventions * were held in
quick succession, at Danville, looking toward a territorial govern-
ment, and as a greater measure of safety toward admission into the
Union. In these the debates ran high, and disputes were often
* They were the sixth and seventh which had been held.
126 ~ POLITICAL HISTORY OF
long and angry. At length out of the turmoil came a proposi-
tion to recommend separate territorial existence. Congress
acted promptly and erected “ The Territory South of the Ohio
River,” including Kentucky and Tennessee, May 26, 1790. This
- action was followed Feb. 4, 1791, to take effect June I, 1792, by
another act admitting Kentucky into the Union'as a State. Thus
was used the old territory of Virginia south of the Ohio.
TENNESSEE ADM] T T ED.——Tennessee was that part of
~ the national domain ceded by North Carolina, to which was
added, on the south, the strip of twelve miles wide ceded by
South Carolina. It was also all that was left of “ the Territory
South of the Ohio," after Kentucky was admitted. It too was a
dangerous Territory, bordering as it did on partly foreign waters
(the Mississippi), and subject to the same inducements to drift
away from ‘the Atlantic inﬂuence, as was Kentucky. Like Ken-
tucky, also, the Tennessee region had early become the scene of
white settlement and bloody Indian encounter. It too was “a
dark and bloody ground” for many years, extending from, say
1754 to the close of the American revolution. Indeed, during
the revolution Great Britain attempted to work in the rear of
the American situation by arming the Cherokees and pushing . i
them through the settlements of the Cumberland and on to the
colonists of Virginia and the Carolinas. Only by the most
heroic efforts of the Carolina and Virginia militia was the terri-
tory held against Indian foe and English promise to the inhabi-
tants of special favors if they too would take up arms against the
Atlantic colonists. '
As long as the territory belonged to North Carolina it was
known as the “ District of Washington.” After the peace of
I 78 3, and the founding of Nashville, the people felt that the
Mother Colony was no longer protective, yet like those of Ken-
tucky, they had no faith in the government of the Confederation,
and deemed it a feeble power to tie to. They were, therefore, at
sea as to a proper allegiance, till afterthe adoption of the Con-
stitution of 1787. Then, with a stronger central government in
view, one which could afford the much needed protection, and
which was worthy of conﬁdence and support,‘ their political
THE UNITED STATES. 127
future became plain. North Carolina relinquished all control in
1790, and in the same year Tennessee became a part of “The
Territory South of the Ohio.” Two years after the admission
of Kentucky, the people formed a State Constitution and pre—
sented it to Congress. It was approved June 1, 1796, and Ten-
nessee became a State of the American Union, her territory
having been that of North Carolina and part of South Carolina.
The admission of Kentucky and Tennessee was a commercial
necessity. They gave to the Union a Mississippi frontage,
headed off further Spanish scheming in the upper valley, and
presented the hand of our dynasty in such a way as to be taken
hold of in friendly commercial clasp across the “Father of
Waters,” or with iron grip for supremacy from Lake Itaska to
the Delta. The stars on the American ﬂag numbered sixteen.
OHIO‘ GETS READY.—-—'Turning the century the govern-
ment was busy withﬂits “ Territory Northwest of the Ohio.” By
act of May 7, 1800,'to take effect July 1, 1800, it was divided
into two parts. This was getting ready for the State of Ohio,
for one part was very like the present Ohio. The other part was
incorporated into the “ Territory of Indiana.” And a word about
this “Territory of Indiana.” It of course comprised all that
was left of “ The Territory Northwest of the Ohio,” after Ohio
was taken away. But it had a greater fame before it. After
France made her cession of Louisiana it was, by act of October 1
1, 1804, erected into “The District of Louisiana,” and placed
under the jurisdiction of the ofﬁcers appointed to govern the
Territory of Indiana. Thus, for purposes of government, the
Territory of Indiana was a vast empire, the largest by far ever
organized by the government within its territory. Territorial
Indiana reached to the Paciﬁc and the gulf.
The part cut off, and which was to become Ohio, embraced all
of present Ohio up to a line drawn east and west through the
southern point of Lake Michigan, and this was Ohio as ad-
mitted into the Union by act of April 30, 1802, to take effect
November 29, 1802. But the Ohio of to-day contains some
600 square miles more territory. Her northern boundary was
adjusted by act of June 15, 1836, called the “Enabling act for
the State of Michigan,” and by act of June 23, 1836.
128 POLITICAL HISTORY.
France and England, both original claimants of Ohio, began
to clash about, and on, the soil as early as 17 50. It had been a
stamping ground for French traders long before this. At that
time Virginians and Englishmen, having obtained a grant of
600,000 acres, came as settlers and traders. Frequent collisions
with the French ended in war. To drive out the French was
the object of Braddock’s disastrous march on Fort Du Quesne.
Not until the loss of Canada and the Mississippi valley by
France in I 763, did Ohio become undisputed English soil. On
account of these rival claims and bloody disputes, permanent
settlement was tardy in a land so inviting and so contiguous to
the old States. Even after the organization of “ The Territory of
the Northwest,” Ohio was by no means a pleasant place to go to,
for the Indians were very tenacious of their titles to the land,
and were kept in a state of ferment and opposition by the
British on the north. The entire regionwas in a state of war
from 1790 to 1794, when the Miamies’ were humiliated by
General Wayne. After this migration and settlement were
phenomenally rapid.
LOUISIANA COMES—The mention of Louisiana intro-
duces us to a strange people. The Latin race was in the ascend-
' ant there and not the Saxon. It was the key to the mouth of
the Mississippi, and was desirable to any nation with commercial
ambitions. When Spain held it she was very jealous of it, and
her ownership was a bar to free commerce through either gulf
or Mississippi channels. She saw that her occupancy was a
standing threat on the United States, and that the commercial
drift of all the country east of the river, whose drainage was
into it, must be toward her. Hence, her schemes of an empire
which should embrace both sides of the river. Hence, also,
those other schemes, of which Aaron Burr’s was one, for a great
southwestern country whose strong point should be control of
the “Father of Waters ”—at this date let it be charitably sup-
posed, in favor of the United States.
After the purchase of Louisiana from France in 1803, no time
was lost in getting it under control. That part of the immense
territory now in the State of Louisiana (nearly all) was erected

/,


‘a
D
I.
,
. i x‘
. :3‘ t » / r
.' piglet???) .
' " I) '
.’
.J/ I
ll’l/ " . , ,/ I '
7* //"<// '
, If’
r , /Ir_,
. I ~ I '/ I
'i r i "1.1%, , _ /
'> ‘KAI.’ 1/ 4W’ . ,1 4/}
" / o /z 14/
',"//// a, I A,
7”’ 7””1/ "if/ I
I’ /
4/
47
\\\\_\‘;\- ~
\\~ _ ~
\


. I
(a I
/ {if
I
. _/
GENERAL ANTHONY WAYNE.
129
(D
130 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
into the “ Territory of Orleans,” by act _of March 26, 1804.
Claiborne, who was sent as governor, found our form of govern-
ment unsuitable for a people who spoke little English and whose
institutions rested on laws and customs foreign to our own. So
by act of Congress (1805) they were given a government similar
' to that established for the Territory of Mississippi, which also
contained a mixed Spanish and French population. Out of this
act sprang a system of local laws, embracing many features of
the Code Napoleon, to which the people were reconciled. All
the rest of the Louisiana purchase went into the District of
Louisiana, which, as we have seen, became a part of the Terri-
tory of Indiana. 7
Spain would not relinquish her right to the territory of
Louisiana lying east of the Mississippi, claiming that her ces-
sion to France did not cover it, and that she still owned it as a
part of her Florida. Therefore, in 1810, the United States
seized the port of Baton Rouge, and adjudged the Spanish
territory to be a part of Louisiana. An act of Congress passed
Feb. 20, 1811, enabled the Territory of Orleans to become a
State. By act of April 8, 1812, to take effect April 30, the same
‘was admitted as a State, under the name of Louisiana. Thus
ﬁnally ended what had for a long time been a quiet struggle
between Spain and the United States for permanent sovereignty
of a section which, had the result been otherwise, must have
for a long time retarded our western growth.’ The admission
was a matter of clear and decisive policy, in a commercial
sense, however. much it may have been objected to by certain
parties at the time. It created a sovereign State right where the
‘ greatest inducement existed to protect it, and right where one
of ﬁrm attachment to the Union was most needed. It projected
the national authority to the gulf lines and set up an everlasting
barrier to interference with internal commerce along ten thou-
sand miles of water way.
INDIANA ADMITTED.--The vast Territory of Indiana,
created in 1800 out of that northwest of the Ohio and extended
indeﬁnitely by adding, in .1804, the District of Louisiana, now
gave a State to the Union 'and its name to that State. It was
. THE UNITED STATES. _ 131
carved out of the southeastern part of that Territory by the em
abling act of April 19, 1816, and the resolution approving of its
constitution and admitting it into the Union, as the ‘State of In-
diana, was passed Dec. 11, 1816. The State was not without a
remote territorial history. France had dotted it with trading
and missionary posts, some of which, as Vincennes, became
permanent settlements. After the loss of the French territory,
in 1763, to England, Indiana, like Ohio, was not an inviting
ﬁeld for settlement. The Indians were tenacious of their lands.
Their liking for the old French influence, and the ease with
which the British stirred them up to resent pioneering, kept back
our civilization. After the treaty of 1783, when the whole ter-
ritory passed from Great Britain to the United States of the.
Confederation, the Indians became bitterly hostile. In 1788, one
year after the framing of the constitution, an Indian war broke
out, which involved the whole Northwest. It only ceased when
their powerful and dangerous confederacy was broken by the
victories of General Wayne. Even then the brave Shawnee
leader Tecumseh would not submit but held on, a source of
terror to every infant settlement, till his defeat by General Har-
rison in the celebrated battle of Tippecanoe, Nov. 11, I811.
MISSISSIPPI ADMI T T ED.——The twentieth State to enter
the Union was Mississippi. It was carved out of the Territory
of Mississippi, by act of March I, 1817, which was also the date
of the enabling act. Her constitution and form of government
having been submitted to Congress and approved, she was ad‘
mitted into the Union by joint resolution of Dec. 10, 1817.
Out of the balance of Mississippi Territory, the State of
Alabama was created.
ILLINOIS A S T A T E.—We must turn to the north for the
next State of the Union. Not less than three States were to be
formed out of the territory northwest of the Ohio. Two have ap-
peared, Ohio and Indiana. The third takes shape as Illinois.
It became the Territory of Illinois by act of March I, 1809,
though it extended clear to the British possessions. By the
enabling act of April 18, 1818, the present limits of the State
were ﬁxed, and by joint resolution of Dec. 3,1818, the State was
132 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
admitted into the Union. Though the twenty-ﬁrst State, Illinois
had a history extending back into ‘the seventeenth century. Her
towns of Kaskaskia, Cahokia and others were French settle--
ments and distributing centres as early as 1673.' But the
French occupancy was a lonely one, and Illinois presents the
historic spectacle of a Christian civilization gradually falling
back and merging with that of its Indian surroundings. Like
Ohio and Indiana, Illinois became deeply involved in the French
and English wars for the possession of the Northwest, and like
them it passed into British hands by the treaty of 1763, and into
the possession of the United States by the treaty of I78 3.
ALABAMA EN T ERS.-——NOW that we have had a Northern
State there must be a Southern one. By this time it was
regarded as the proper thing to create alternate free and slave
States. Indeed, few States had hitherto been admitted without
discussion of the question of slavery, and few were to be ad—
mitted without similar discussion. The matter had been some-
what bitterly mooted when the question of the Louisiana
purchase was up, and likewise when Kentucky was a candi-
date for admission. Well, the new State was to be Alabama,
the remnant of Mississippi Territory. Two days after the State
of Mississippi was cut out of this Territory, the Territory of
Alabama was formed, March 3, I817. Two years afterwards an
act enabling Alabama to become a State was passed, March 2,
1819. By joint resolution of Dec. 14, I819, she was admitted
as a State in the Union, the twenty-second on the list.
MAINE APPEARS—There was a race between the North
and South for the next State, the twenty-third. Maine and
Missouri were the competitors, with Maine in the lead. Lapse
of time had ﬁxed the claim of Massachusetts to the soil of
Maine, and to the right to govern her. There were many of her
people, however, who never acknowledged this claim, and
various attempts were made, notably in 1785 and I802, to effect
a separation. At length, in 1819, the Territorial legislature*
ordered an election of delegates “ to express the true will of the
people.” The convention thus created, operating with the con-
* Not a Territoryr of the United States, but a Territory of Massachusetts.
‘
THE UNITED STATES. I 133
sent of the Legislature of Massachusetts, adopted a constitution
and separate form of government, which received the approba-
tion of the people. Massachusetts made formal cession of all
her claims to the Territory. By act of Congress, March 3, 1820,
to take effect March 15, 1820, Maine was admitted into the
Union as a State.
MISSOURI ENTERS AMID STORM—At least a year
before Maine was admitted, a bill to enable the Territory of Mis-
souri (a part of the Louisiana purchase) to become a State was
introduced in Congress. , In the House an amendment was
offered, in the words of the ordinance (1787) for the government
of the Territory Northwest of the Ohio, “ prohibiting slavery or
involuntary servitude in Missouri, except as a punishment for
crime.” Though the Republicans (Democrats) were in an over-
whelming majority in both branches, party lines were dropped
in the House, and the amendment was carried, but was rejected
in the Senate.* 7
This brought the slavery question into a shape it had never
assumed before. It came suddenly. Ex-President Jefferson
said, “it startled him like a ﬁre-bell in the night.” It came, as a
question, from the house of its supposed friends. Before this the
Ohio River had been a convenient line upon which to determine
these questions of slave and free State admissions. But there
was no Ohio beyond the Mississippi. Hence a new line became
necessary, or rather no line, for the best anti-slavery minds con-
tended that slavery in the Territories was a question absolutely
within the purview of Congress. It was not a question of
parties. The Federal party was practically dead, and the Re-
publican (Democratic) party held the entire political line north
and south. It therefore became a question of sections, and bit-
terly the battle was fought over Missouri. The next year (1820)
the defeated Missouri bill came up again in the House, as did
* This astounding measure and vote in the House, together with the popularity
of Clay’s plans for American Protection and Internal Improvement, showed that
there was then the nucleus of a new party within the Republican ranks, which was
soon (1825) to assume shape as the National Republican, afterwards the Whig
Part7-
134 _ ‘ POLITICAL HISTORY OF
the bill to admit Maine. Both passed, and both prohibited
slavery. The Senate passed the Maine bill, and united it with a
bill for Missouri, permitting slavery.* This was done to throw
the responsibility of rejection on the House, a responsibility
which .the House'did not hesitate to assume, for it speedily de-
feated the Senate bill. Henry Clay then came forward with the
celebrated compromise measure, known as “ The Missouri Com-
promise of 1820,” by which both sections agreed to pass, the
‘respective bills, one admitting Maine as a free State, the other
admitting Missouri as a slave State, and forever prohibiting
slavery in all territory north of the line of 36° 30’.
This memorable controversy ended, the Missouri enabling act
was passed March 6, 1820. By joint resolution of March 2,
1821, the admission of the State was further provided for, and
by proclamation of August 10, the State was declared to be a
member of the Union. It had a population in excess of the
60,000 then required to enable a Territory to become a State,
and its chief town, St. Louis, with a population of 5,000, was the
commercial emporium of the upper Mississippi. Missouri was
the ﬁrst State formed wholly out of the territory west of the
Mississippi. Though but a small part of that land of Louisiana
which stretched away to the Paciﬁc and up to the British line, it
was felt that whatever policy, as to slavery, prevailed in her ad-
mission would be likely to prevail in all the States carved out
of the same lands. This was why the ﬁghtover her admission
was so bitter, and why it was deemed proper, then and there, to
ﬁx the policy which should control the admission of future trans-
Mississippi States, by the compromise line of 36° 30’. By act
of June 7, 1836, the northwest boundary of the State was ex-
tended to the Missouri River, the triangular piece thus added
containing about 3,168 square miles.
ARKANSAS ADM] T T ED.—-There was a period of rest from
the work of State building, which lasted for sixteen years, dur-
ing which time the outlying territories were ripening. The
* The Senate only partially divided intosections. Enough Northern Senators
voted with those from the South, to defeat the action of the House.
THE UNITED STATES. _ 135
“ Territory of Arkansaw ” * had been carved out of the Territory
of Missouri, by act of March 19, 1819. It had limits coincident
with those of the present State. By act of June 15, 1836, the
same was admitted as the State of Arkansas. It had not a full
quota of inhabitants when admitted, and but little previous
history except what belonged to the period of French and
Spanish occupancy. The French claimed Arkansas Post as
among the oldest settlements of the country.
MICHIGAN A CANDIDA T E.——-An important State was
now ready in the Northwest. The Territory of Michigan had
been formed as early as June 30, 1805, from the Territory of In—
diana. It then included but little more than the Michigan penin-
sula, between Lakes Huron and Erie and Lake Michigan. On
June 28, 1834, the Territory of Michigan was made to extend to
the Missouri and White Earth Rivers. Out of this large area
was carved the present State of Michigan, by the enabling act
of June 15, 1836. Her constitution and form of government
having met with the approval of Congress, she was admitted as
a State by act of Jan. 26, 18 37. The trail of the French trader
and missionary is plainer in Michigan than in any other State of
the Northwest. Detroit was a French town as early as I 701.
River, lake, bay, and town bear frequent witness to the French
occupancy. It cannot be said that the American inﬂuence-was
felt in Michigan before 1796. During the war of 1812, Detroit
was held by the British, and became the starting-point of those 4
Anglo-Indian campaigns which wrapped the Northwest in gloom
and drenched it with blood. At the time of her admission,
Michigan had far more than her quota of population, and nearly
four times as many as Arkansas, admitted the year before.
FLORIDA A MEMBER—It was now the turn of the
“ Flowery realm.” Though thinly populated, and with but little
more than half a quota, it was deemed politic to make Florida
the twenty-seventh State. The “ East Florida,” which Spain
ceded Feb. 22, 1819, was erected into the Territory of Florida
March 30, 1822. By act of March 3, 1845, it was admitted as a
* The Territory was that of A rhansaw, which spelling has recently been decided
by the State authorities to control the pronunciation of Arkansas.
136 POLITICAL HISTORY.
State. It had had a long and eventful history both as a Spanish
and English possession. From its climate, situation, and prom-
ises, it was always a coveted country, yet ever an expensive one
to take and hold.
[0 WA ADZLH T T ED.—-The day that gave birth to Florida
saw also a new State in the Northwest. Iowa Territory had been
cut out of Wisconsin Territory, June 12, 1838. ‘This Territory
was not identical with the present State of Iowa, but embraced
all north of Missouri and between the Missouri and Mississippi
Rivers. Out of this was carved a State of Iowa, which was ad-
mitted into the Union March 3, 1845. But the boundaries were
not satisfactory. By act of Aug. 4, 1846, the northern boundary
was lowered from the parallel running through the mouth of the
Mankato or Blue Earth River to where it now is, and the western
boundary was pushed from meridian of 17° 30' to where it now
is. After this adjustment of boundaries the State was readmitted
Dec. 28, 1846. As part of the French domain, Iowa had a
history as early as 1686, when Dubuque was a fort and trading-
post.
TEXAS ANNEXA T [ON—The twenty-ninth State, Texas,
was the most imposing piece of territory that had, as yet, applied
for admission into the Union. It was not carved out of our own
territory as other States had been, nor was it prepared for mem-
bership by any process of ripening under a Territorial govern-
ment. A member of the Mexican Republic, it had seceded and
set up for itself. Its admission into the American Union would
be a surrender of its independence to again try the experiment
of membership in a Republic to which it had all along been for-
eign.* Discussion of the question of Texas Annexation occu-
pied most of the time of the second session of the Thirty-eighth
Congress, 1844-45. A proposition to prohibit slavery within its
borders was voted downqL With full knowledge of the fact that
* Quite a number of Saxon settlers had drifted into Texas who had done much
to foster the spirit of annexation. -
1- Mexico had abolished slavery twenty years before, and therefore by the law of
the Mexican Republic Texas was free territory. But Texas, when independent
had re-established slavery.
\ex
.\


\
x
\
\\ be.
GENERAL ZACHARY TAYLOR.
137
138 POLITICAL HIsToRY OF
its status was one of war with Mexico, and that annexation
would be an assumption of that status, the Congress voted for
it. The joint resolution of annexation prohibited slavery in any
State formed of Texas territory north of 36° 30', but left the
question to the people of the States to be formed of said terri-
tory south of that line. We have already seen the steps by
which her territory passed to the United States and the conse-
quences.* The date of her admission was Dec. 29, I845.
WISCONSIN ADIl/IITTED.——The thirtieth State was Wis-
consin. The Territory of Wisconsin was erected by act of April
20, 1836. It was cut out of the Territory of Michigan, and that
part east of the Mississippi had previously been in the Territories
of Illinois, Indiana and the northwest of the Ohio. The Terri-
tory of ‘Wisconsin embraced the States of Wisconsin, Iowa and
part of Minnesota. The Territory of Iowa was severed by act of
June 12, 18 38. By the enabling act of August 6, I846, Wiscon-
sin took its present shape, and by act of May '29, 1848, was ad-
mitted as a State. Like the rest of the northwest territory
Wisconsin shows in its names of places the trail of its early
French occupants and owners.
CALIFORNIA COMES—The Mexican war ended by the
peace of February 2,1848, called the treaty of Guadaloupe-
Hidalgo. This brought that immense cession of territory men-
tioned on page I 10, and out of which the Territory of California
was organized. This cession threw'the country into another
ferment over the slavery question. By the ‘laws of Mexico all
this territory was free. But the proslavery wing of the Demo-
cratic party joined issue with the friends of the Wilmot Proviso
and forced another compromise (that of 18 50), which, so far as
California was concerned, had the effect of making her a free
Statej' She applied for admission Feb. 13, 1850, and was ad-
mitted Sept. 9, 1850. The discovery of gold in her soil, the
rapid population of the State by the adventurous and not too
peaceful “forty-niners,” and various apparent commercial rea-
sons, not to say a pardonable national pride, made a State on
* See am‘e, p. 107 and page 388,1mz.
T For fuller details of this compromise see page 4.0!.
THE UNITED STATES. 139
the Paciﬁc coast most desirable. The arch of the Union now
spanned the continent. From 1787 to 18 50 had been just sixty-
three years. ' '
MINNESOTA ADMITTED.——Minnesota Territory had been
formed March 3, 1849, out of the parts of Territories of Iowa
and Wisconsin not included in those two States. Out of this
Territory was ‘carved the present State of Minnesota by the
enabling act of Feb. 26, 1857. On May 11, 1858,.the State of
Minnesota was admitted into the Union. The balance of Minne-
sota Territory went to Territory of Dakota.
OREGON HEARD FROM——The Paciﬁc Coast presents
another candidate. The immense Territory of Oregon was
created out of all the- northwestern portion of the Louisiana
purchase, on Aug. 14, 1848. It extended from the fortieth
parallel to the British possessions, and from the Paciﬁc to the
Rocky Mountains, with an area of nearly 300,000 square miles.
Out of this domain was carved the State of Oregon, which by
act of Feb. 14, I8 59, was admitted into the Union. The rest of
her Territory became the Territory of Washington.
KANSAS, AND T R O UBLE—The thirty-fourth State, Kan-
sas, had a stormy birth. The throes she engendered shook the
Union to its very centre. The celebrated. Kansas-Nebraska bill
was introduced into the House Jan. 2 3, 1854. It was designed
to establish the fact that the compromise of 1820 had been re-
pealed by that of 1850, and further to establish the principle that.
slavery, north or south of 36° 30’, was a matter for the people
of each Territory to decide for themselves. The bill passed in
March, 1854, and both North and South encouraged colonization
within the limits of Kansas, which the bill created into a Terri-
tory immediately west of Missouri and between 37° and 40°,
as well as Nebraska, lying north of Kansas and between 40° and
43°. Under the circumstances the condition of Kansas was that
of constant petty war. It became a “ bleeding Kansas ” indeed,
and as to bloodless party passion the rest of the country was no
better off.* For seven years this warfare went on, and only ended
* For fuller details of Kansas-Nebraska question see Administrations and Con-
gresses, pages 413 and 429.
140 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
after the work of seceding from the Union began. Then the
government which had been set up under the Lecompton con-
stitution was repudiated, and that formed under the Wyandot
Free State Constitution was adopted by a Republican Congress
Jan. 29, 1861, and Kansas became a State in the Union. The
Territory of Kansas formed under the bill of Jan. 23, 1854,
adopted May 30, 1854, had for its western boundary the Rocky
Mountains, which were the eastern boundary of Utah. The act
which admitted her as a State ﬁxed the 25th meridian as her
western boundary. All the rest of the Territory of Kansas went
to the Territory of Colorado.
WEST VIRGINIA CREATED.-—The destructive work of
secession introduced a new feature in State building. Virginia
seceded from the Union and cast her lot with the Southern Con—
federacy, April 17, 1861. Some thirty-nine of the western coun-
ties refused to be bound by her action. Representatives from
these met at Wheeling to protest against secession. A second
convention met in August which framed a separate State con-
stitution and form of government. This was submitted to the
people in May, 1862, and ratiﬁed. It was then submitted to
Congress, and after some slight amendments was accepted. The
President was authorized to proclaim that it should take effect
June 19, 1863, on which date West Virginia became a State in .
the Union. In 1872 the counties of Jefferson and Berkley, parts
of Old Virginia, were added to West Virginia, the thirty-ﬁfth
State.
NEVADA ADM] T T ED.—Nevada Territory was erected
March 2, 1861, out of a strip from California, and that part of
Utah Territory lying west of 38th meridian, though California
has not yet made formal cession of the portion taken from her.
The enabling act for the Territory was passed March 21, 1864,
and on October 31, 1864, Nevada was admitted as a State. Her
boundaries were much enlarged by act of May 5, 1866, which
added some 18,326 square miles from Utah, and 12,225 square
miles from Arizona, Territories.
NEBRASKA A C CEPTED.—The original Territory of Ne-
braska was erected May 30, 18 54, out of that part of the public
THE UNITED STATES. 141
domain lying between Minnesota and the Rocky Mountains and
between 40° N. lat., and the British possessions. But as part of
this Territory shared with Kansas the vicissitudes of the slavery
excitement, the paring process, which ran through half a dozen
acts of Congress, did not end till April 19, 1864, when an
enabling act was passed for the present limits of Nebraska. On
February 9, 1867, she was admitted as a State, the act to take
effect March 1, 1867.
THE CENTENNIAL S T A T E.—The Territory of Colorado
was created by act of February 28, 1861. It was one of a set
then erected,”< about which no mention of slavery was made
in obedience to the terms of the Dred Scott decision. But there
was then no need of such mention, for the South had given up
its efforts to populate the debatable Territories and vote therein
for slavery, and had entered upon secession as a remedy for evils
it deemed otherwise incurable. Owing to mining, Colorado had
a ﬂuctuating population for many years. A State Constitution
was framed in convention 1875-76, and accepted by the
people July 1, 1876. The date of ﬁnal admission was August
1,1876.
T EARING DOWN—The sentiment of the country respect-
ing slavery had grown more divergent ever since the adoption
of the Constitution. It was not at ﬁrst sectional, but as time
passed it took that shape. Then it got to be political as well.
The Kansas affair (see Kansas), the division of the Democratic
party in its convention of 1860, the evidence of a solidiﬁed and
overwhelming anti-slavery sentiment supplied by the election of
Mr. Lincoln, determined the slave States to no longer ﬁght a
losing battle for the maintenance and spread of their institution
in the Union, but to secede and set up a central government of
their own. Not doubting the wisdom of the step nor their ability
to maintain it against the armed remonstrance they knew it was
sure to provoke, they began the work of dismemberment in 1860.
The war which followed, and its results, must be the historic test
of both the wisdom and strength of their undertaking, as well as
of the ability of the Union to maintain itself against this kind
* Including Nevada and Dakota. ‘
142 POLITICAL HISTORY.
of attack, and to adapt itself to the prevalent vital thought of
each succeeding age. ' l
The ﬁrst open and direct step of dismemberment was taken by
South Carolina in a convention called for the purpose. It was
an ordinance of secession entitled “An Ordinance to dissolve the
Union between the State of South Carolina and other States united
with her in the compact entitled the Constitution of the United
States of America,” and was to take effect Dec. 20, I860. Before
the end of January, 1861, similar ordinances had been passed by
Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas.
Delegates from these States met at Montgomery, Alabama, in
February, 1 861 , and formed a government called the “ Confederate
States of America,” whose constitution closely resembled that
which they had repudiated, save that it recognized slavery and
prohibited protective tariffs. This Confederacy attracted other
slave-holding States to it, to wit, Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas
and North‘ Carolina. Thus eleven States were lost to the
American Union and were in open war with it. It was the
hardest and most direct blow ever administered to the Republic,
because it came not from strangers but friends, not from without
but'within. The shock was fearful. For four years the grand
monument of the fathers trembled to its base. For four years
Republican institutions existed amid cloud and darkness, doubt-
ful of clearing sky or auspicious sunrise. Those years ended,
the result was failure of the Confederacy to maintain itself, the
loss of slavery to its States, surrender of the attempt to wrench
by force what reason could not win.
REB UILDING—This was a delicate and somewhat tedious
task. There was no standard by which to determine the relation
of these seceded States to the National Union, now that they
had failed to validate by force their ordinances of separation.
But the Supreme Court furnished one in 1869, in the case of
Texas 71.9. White. It was held that “ the ordinances of secession
were absolutely null,” that the seceding States had no right to
secede, had never been out of the Union, could not get out ex—
cept through successful rebellion. That the utmost they had '
done was to put off their old State governments, and take on
COAT OF ARMS
OF
EACH STATE IN THE AMERICAN UNION.


e:
/Z‘\ /\
"I l g I’
\ ~ 1 I
,1


:54’
3 ‘1.'-._'!_
. ‘I .4‘
't'l‘iw
~ , :~\. 1
CALIFORNIA.
FLORIDA.
COATS OF ARMS.
Q“
A! -

fr
- ‘c
MASSACHUSETTS. MICHIGAN.
COATS OF ARMS.


. ' _-._..
1!: ,!\- '


.s,, W?“ . .
"I' )?VA ., ' , '. _ I j
’ “Mistrial/N, ~
MISSISSIPPI.
EBRASKA.


b> ._. 2x \
NEW HAMPSHIRE.


iii-HIE ‘e
.. .'_.?\
:f


1,...‘ _,.
um‘, ‘
___ 'l ;..-.~, , - ' it, ' -— 4". s
NORTH CAROLINA.
10
COAT5 OF ARMS"
_Hi'L’“
PENNS


YLVANIA'


In" £3.‘
I "(film
I z’ ‘I a h i. I i‘ i \ — i I; I I i i a‘
v _ "z "2.; .§_\ ‘ ' ‘ Ti“: V
._ _
‘a.
_ ‘
w
5
Q
_\\\\\|1/

WISCONSIN‘
WEST VIRGINIA-
146
If}. r
.
POLITICAL HISTORY. 147
others which ﬁtted them for membership in their Confederacy,
but unﬁtted them _for the place a State must hold in the Union,
under the amended Constitution. That, therefore, the Congress
had the right to re-establish the relation of these seceded,
States to the Union. The terms ﬁxed were the establishment
of State Constitutions and forms of government in accord with
the amended National Constitution, and full ratiﬁcation of its
provisions. Waiving the above questions, Tennessee had sought
and secured readmission, July" 24, 1866; Arkansas, June 22,
1868; North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia and
Florida under act of June 25, 1868, but with the proviso that
they must further subscribe to the act of 1867 regarding free
citizenship. All did this promptly except Georgia. Virginia
was readmitted Jan. 2 5 , I870 ; Mississippi, Feb. 2 3, 1870; Texas,
March 30, 1870. Georgia held out for the right to exclude
negroes from ofﬁce, but ﬁnally opened her ofﬁces to all citizens,
and was readmitted July 15, I870. The Union was restored to
its full strength and majesty—let it be said to a fuller strength
and majesty than before.
THE TERRITORIES. UTAH—Of those vast outlying '
acres not yet ready for States, but which have organizations and
governments through Congress, Utah Territory was formed Sept.
9, 1850. It had then an immense area of 220,000 square miles,
parts of which were spared to Colorado, Nebraska, Nevada and
Wyoming, leaving its present boundaries and an area of 82,190
square miles. This Territory is the seat of Mormonism, and
has on that account been conspicuous in our history.
NEW MEXI C O.——The Territory of New Mexico was erected
Sept. 9, 18 50, the same day as _Utah. ‘It embraced lands ceded
by Mexico and those included in the Gadsden purchase. By
losing parts to Colorado and Arizona it has gotten its present '
boundaries and an area of 122,460 square miles.
WASHIN GT ON—Six years before Oregon became a State
her immense territory was severed, and the northern portion be-
came Washington Territory, March 2, 1853. By losing the
Territory of Idaho, and part of Nebraska, it got its present
boundaries and an area of 66,880 square miles.
148 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
THE INDIAN CO UN T R K—The idea of setting apart a por-
tion of our domain for the exclusive use of Indians was not
more humanitarian than the result of a need for protection.
Remains of brave tribes, many of them despairing, most of them i
at enmity with the whites, were scattered about in the States and
Territories. To get rid of them by putting them on soil they
could call their own, where they would not be in the white man’s
way and where they might, perchance, lift themselves a little
toward the civilization which had surrounded them and driven
them thither, was the object of an Indian Country. It was laid
off geographically, but was not organized as a Territory, June
30, 1834. It was to embrace “all that part of the United States
west of the Mississippi, and not within the States of Missouri,
‘Louisiana and the Territory of Arkansas.” The extent of this
country and the fact that no organization was provided for
showed that the legislation which set it apart was not serious.
Almost immediately the land began to be needed for other pur-
poses, and there was nothing in the act setting it apart for Indian
uses to raise even so much as a question about the impropriety
or wrongfulness of dividing it up and appropriating it to other
uses. So by various Acts of Congress this “Indian Country”
was pared down to its present size and shape. The last act, that
of May 30, 1854, organizing the Territory of Kansas, limited it
to 69,830 square miles, with Missouri and Arkansas on its east,
Kansas on its north, the'Red River on its south and the 100th
meridian on its west.
The “Indian Country” is a monument of national honor and
disgrace; honor, because it is the ﬁrst distinct recognition, on
the part of our government, of a policy that savored of human—
ity; disgrace, because, until lately, it was the only formal an-
nouncement of such a policy, and because through lack of
candor, through bad management, through failure to engraft on
it any working system, it has never produced a satisfactory
fruitage. It seems amazing that the Saxon, even when highly
civilized and in the enjoyment of strong, reducing and redeem-
ing institutions, should always have regarded the Indian problem
as a difﬁcult one. It never was difficult. The French mission-
THE UNITED STATES. 149
ary and trader did not ﬁnd ‘it so. But then he chose to regard
the Indian as a man, as endowed with feeling akin to his own, as
owner of the soil, as susceptible to civilizing inﬂuences. Failure
' to so regard him is the secret of our neglect of the Indian, or
rather of our ungenerous treatment of him. The idea of his
extermination got an early hold on the colonist, and we seem
never to have been able to outgrow this primitive and absurd no-
tion. Modern humanitarians are more awake to the thought of
making the Indian a part of our people. They feel the disgrace
the nation has brought on itself, and the age, by its unwillingness
or inability to devise a plan by which the Indian can be turned
from his ways and made a factor in industry, art, science, govern-
ment and morals. With a plan of government which will secure
him schools, right to own separate farms, ownership of the pro-
ceeds thereof, immunity from disturbance by whites when he
appears to be in the way, the franchise, privileges of citizenship,
there is no doubt of his future peacefulness and usefulness.
DAKOTA—Dakota Territory was erected by act of March
2, 1861, out of the Territory of Nebraska, and the remains of
vMinnesota Territory. It contained 310,867 square miles, but
by losing Idaho, and by other adjustments, it was left with its
present area of 147,700 square miles, July 25, 1868.
ARIZONA—Arizona was made a Territory Feb. 24, 1863,
out of lands ceded by Mexico, and embraced in the Territory of
New Mexico. By act of May 5, 1866, she lost a part of her
soil to Nevada. Present area 112,920 square miles.
IDAIIO—ldaho was formed from Washington Territory,
March 3, 1863. Her area was 118,439 square miles, which was
increased by various acquisitions to 326,373 square miles.
Then by losses to Montana, Dakota and Wyoming, she got her
present boundary, and area of 84,290 square miles, all of which
was once in Washington Territory, formerly in Oregon Terri-
tory, and is a part of the Louisiana Purchase.
MON T ANA—Was erected May 26, 1864, from northern
Idaho. Her entire area of 145,310 square miles is part of the
Louisiana Purchase.
ALASKA A C Q UISI T I ON—This ‘territory is unorganized,
in 11.‘
150 POLITICAL HISTORY.
though efforts to secure a Territorial organization are now
being made. It came into the possession of the United States
May 28, 1867, from Russia (see ante). Our evidences of
sovereignty there and the keeping of the peace depend on the
presence of the military or naval branches of the government.
Area 5 31,409 square miles ; or as large as two States like Texas,
twenty like Pennsylvania, or four hundred and thirty-four like
Rhode Island. . ,
WYOMING—The last Territory formed was Wyoming, by
not of July 25, 1868. Area 97,575 square miles. It embraces
the remnants of more States and Territories than any other,
being the last formed. It includes'parts of the French and
Mexican cessions, and parts of what were Oregon, Nebraska,
Idaho, Dakota, Washington and Utah Territories.
ALL HARMONIOUS—This brings all the Territory of the
United States into deﬁnite subdivisions, and gives to each a form
of government in harmony with the government of the whole._
The States have constitutions, forms of government, and codes
of laws, enacted by their people, and in accord with the federal
constitution. The Territories have only statutory existence and
deﬁnite metes and bounds. Their governments do not exist by
voice of the people but by Act of Congress: they therefore are
provisional and temporary, lasting till the people are sufﬁciently
numerous * and unanimous to form acceptable State govern-
ments. As already seen, Alaska is held under a military or _
naval government.
* In general, the population ought to equal the last apportionment for a member
of Congress. But where commercial or other high reasons exist, States are often
admitted with a less quota.


THE
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
A DECLARATION BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED
WHEN, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to as
sume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the
laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of
mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the
separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments
are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the gov-
erned ; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it
is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government,
laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as
to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, in-
deed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light
and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience hath shown, that mankind
are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to re-
duce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off
such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has
(151)
w‘152 ‘ POLITICAL HISTORY OF
been the patient suﬁ‘erance of these colonies, and such is ‘now the necessity which
constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the
present king of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all
having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States.
To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world:
He has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public
good.
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing impor—
tance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and,
when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of
people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legis-
lature; a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and
distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing
them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly ﬁrm-
ness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused, for a long time after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected;
whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the
people at large for their exercise; the State remaining, in the meantime, exposed to
all the danger of invasion from without and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose,
obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners ; refusing to pass others to
encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations
of lands‘.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for
establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone for the tenure of their ofiices
and the amount and payment of their salaries. '
He has erected a multitude of new oﬂices, and sent hither swarms of officers to
harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of
our legislature.
He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil
power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our con-
stitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pre-
tended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;
For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which
they should commit on the inhabitants of these States;
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;
For imposing taxes on us without our consent;
For depriving us, in many cases, of the beneﬁts of trial by jury;
THE UNITED STATES. 153
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences;
For abolishnig the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, estab-
lishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render
it at once an example and ﬁt instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into
these colonies;
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering,
fundamentally, the powers of our governments;
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with
power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and
waging war against us. >
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed
the lives of our people. .
He is, at this time, transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete
the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun, with circumstances of
cruelty and perﬁdy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally un-
worthy the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear
arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren,
or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring
on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule
of warfare is an undistinguished destruction, of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these oppressions, we have petitioned for redress, in the most
humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.
A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may deﬁne a tyrant, is
unﬁt to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren.
We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts made by their legislature
to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the
circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their
native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them, by the ties of our com-
mon kindred, to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our
connections and correspondence. They, too, have been deaf to the voice of justice
and consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces
our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in
peace, friends.
We, therefore, the representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GEN-
ERAL CONGRESS assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the
rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name', and by the authority of the good people
of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are,
and of right ought to be, free and independent States; that they are absolved from
all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connection between them
and the state of Great Britain, is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as
FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace,
154 POLITICAL HIsToRY
contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which
INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And, for the support of this declaration,
with a ﬁrm reliance on the protection of DIVINE PROVIDENCE, we mutually
pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. '

ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION
AND perpetual union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay,
Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Georgia.
ARTICLE I. The style of this Confederacy shall be, “ THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA.” '
ARTICLE II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and
every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly
delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.
ARTICLE III. The said states hereby severally enter into a ﬁrm league of friend-
ship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their liberties, and
their mutual and general welfare; binding themselves to assist each other against
all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account
of religion, sovereignty, trade, or anyother pretence whatever.
ARTICLE IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and inter-
course among the people of the different states in this Union, the free inhabitants of
each of these states, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall
be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and
the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other
state; and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and' commerce, subject to
the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively;
provided, that such restriction shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of
property imported into any state to any other state, of which the owner is an inhab-
itant; provided also, that no imposition, duties, or restriction shall be laid by any
state on the property of the United States, or either of them.
If any person guilty of, or charged with treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor,
in any state, shall ﬂee from justice, and be found in any of the United States, he
shall, upon demand of the governor or executive power of the state from which
he ﬂed, be delivered up and removed to the state having jurisdiction of his offence.
Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these states to the records, acts, and
judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other state.
ARTICLE V. For the more convenient management of the general interests of
the United ‘States, delegates shall be annually appointed ‘in such manner as the leg-
islature of each state shall direct, to meet in Congress on the ﬁrst Monday
in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each state to recall its dele-
gates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and send others in their stead for
the remainder of the year.
(155)
156 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
No state shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor by more than seven
members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three
years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable
of holding any ofﬁce under the United States, for which he, or another for his bene-
ﬁt, receives any salary, fees, or emolument of any kind.
Each state shall maintain its own delegates in a meeting of the states, and while
they act as members of the committee of the states.
In determining questions in the United States in Congress assembled, each state
shall have one vote.
Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned
in any court or place out of Congress; and the members of Congress shall be pro-
tected in their persons from arrests and imprisonment during the time of their going
to, and from, and attending on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the
peace.
ARTICLE VI. No state, without the consent of the United States in Congress
assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any
conference, agreement, alliance, or treaty with any king, prince, or state; nor shall
any person, holding any ofﬁce of proﬁt or trust under the United States, or any of
them, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever from
any king, prince, or foreign state; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled,
or any of them, grant any title of nobility.
No two or more states shall enter into any treaty, confederation, or alliance what-
ever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled,
specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how
long it shall continue. '
No state shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere with any stipulations
in treaties entered into by the United States in Congress assembled, with any king,
prince, or state, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by Congress to the
Courts of France and Spain.
No vessels of war shall be kept up, in time of 'peace, by any state, except such
number only as shall be deemed necessary, by the United States in Congress assem-
bled, for the defence of such state, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept
up by any state, in time of peace, except such number only as, in the judgment of
the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the
forts necessary for the defence of such state: but every state shall always keep up a
well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufﬁciently armed and accoutred; and shall
provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number
of ﬁeld-pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp
equipage. I
No state shall engage in any war, without the consent of the United States in
Congress assembled, unless such state he actually invaded by enemies, or shall have
received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to
invade such state, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the
United States in Congress assembled can be consulted; nor shall any state grant
commissions to any ship or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except
THE UNITED STATES. 157
it be after a declaration of war by the United States in Congress assembled; and
then only against the kingdom or state, and the subjects thereof, against which war
has been so declared, and under such regulations as shall be established by the
United States in Congress assembled, unless Such state be infested by pirates, in which
case vessels of war may be ﬁtted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the dan-
ger shall continue, or until the United States in Congress assembled shall determine
otherwise.
ARTICLE VII. When land forces are raised by any state for the common defence,
all ofﬁcers of or under the rank of colonel shall be appointed by the legislature of
‘each state respectively, by whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as
such state shall direct; and all vacancies shall be ﬁlled up by the state which ﬁrst
made the appointment.
ARTICLE VIII. All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred
for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in
Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury which shall be sup.
plied by the several states in proportion to the value of all land within each state,
granted to or surveyed for any person as such land and the buildings and improve-
ments thereon shall be estimated, according to such mode as the United States in
Congress assembled shall, from time to time, direct and appoint. The taxes for
paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the
legislatures of the several states, within the time agreed upon by the United States
in Congress assembled.
ARTICLE IX. The United States, in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and
exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases
mentioned in the sixth Article: Of sending and receiving ambassadors: Entering
into treaties and alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made
whereby the legislative power of the respective states shall be restrained from im-
posing such imposts and duties on foreigners as their own people are subjected to,
or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or com~
modities whatever: Of establishing rules for deciding, in all cases, what captures
on land or water shall be legal; and in what manner prizes, taken by land or naval
forces in the service of the United States, Shall be divided or appropriated: Of grant~
ing letters of marque and reprisal in times of peace: Appointing courts for the trial
of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas; and establishing courts for re-
ceiving and determining, ﬁnally, appeals in all cases of captures; provided that no
member of Congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the said courts.
The United States, in Congress assembled, shall also be the last resort, on appeal,
in all disputes and differences now subsisting, or that hereafter may arise ‘between
two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatever;
which authorjty shall always be exercised in the manner following: Whenever the
legislative or executive authority, or lawful agent of any state, in controversy with
another, shall present a petition to Congress, stating the matter in question, and
praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given, by order of Congress, to the
legislative or executive authority of the other state in controversy; and a day as-
signed for the appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall then be
158 POLITICAL HIsTORY OF
directed to appoint, by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court
for hearing and determining the matter in question, but if they cannot agree, Con-
gress shall name three persons out of each of the United States; and from the list
of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning,
until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than
seven nor more than nine names, as Congress shall direct, shall, in the presence of
Congress, be drawn out by lot; and the persons whose names shall be so drawn, or
any ﬁve of them, shall be commissioners or judges to hear and ﬁnally determine the
controversy, so always as a major part of the judges, who shall hear the cause, shall
agree in the determination. And- if either party shall neglect to attend at the day
appointed, without showing reasons which Congress shall judge suii’icient, or being
present shall refuse to strike, the Congress _shall proceed to nominate three persons
out of each state, and the Secretary of Congress shall strike in behalf of such party
absent or refusing; and the judgment and sentence of the court, to be appointed in
the manner before prescribed, shall be ﬁnal and conclusive. And if any of the par-
- ties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear, or defend
their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence or
judgment, which shall in like manner be ﬁnal and decisive; the judgment or sen-
tence and other proceedings being, in either case, transmitted to Congress and lodged
among the Acts of Congress for the security of the parties concerned : Provided that
every commissioner, before he sits in judgment, shalltake an oath, to be adminis-
tered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the state where the
cause shall be tried, “ Well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question,
according to the best of his judgment, without favor, affection, or hope of reward: ”
Provided also, that no state shall be deprived of territory for the beneﬁt of the
United States.
All controversies concerning the private right of soil claimed under different
grants of two or more states, whose jurisdictions, as they may respect such lands and
the states which passed such grants, are adjusted, the said grants, or either of them,
being at the same time claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement
of jurisdiction, shall, on the petition of either party to the Congress of the
United States, be ﬁnally determined, as near as may be, in the same manner as is
before prescribed for deciding disputes respecting territorial jurisdiction between
different states.
The United States, in Congress assembled, shall also have the sole.and exclusive
right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own
authority, or by that of the respective states: Fixing the standard of weights and
measures throughout the United States: Regulating the trade and managing all
affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the states; provided that the legis-
lative right of any state within its own limits be not infringed or violated : Estab.
lishing and regulating post-oiﬁces, from one state to another, throughout all the
United States, and exacting such postage on the papers passing through the same as
may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said ofﬁce: Appointing all officers of
the land forces in the service of the United States, excepting regimental officers:
Appointing all the officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all oﬁieers what-
THE UNITED STATES. 159
ever in the service of the United States: Making rules for the government and regu-
lation of the land and'naval forces, and directing their operations.
The United States, in Congress assembled, shall have authority to appoint a com.-
mittee, to sit in the recess of Congress, to be denominated A COMMITTEE OF THE
STATES, and to consist of one delegate from each state, and to appoint such other
committees and civil ofﬁcers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs
of the United States under their direction: To appoint one of their number to pre-
side; provided that no person be allowed to serve in the ofﬁce of president more
than one year in any term of three years : To ascertain the necessary sums of money
to be raised for the service of the United States, and to appropriate and apply the
same for defraying the public expenses: To borrow money or emit bills on the credit
of the United States, transmitting every half year to the respective states an account
of the sums of money so borrowed or emitted : To build and equip a navy: To agree
upon the number of land forces, and to make requisitions from each state for its
quota, in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such state, which requisi-
tion shall be binding; and thereupon the legislature of each state shall appoint the
regimental oﬁicers, raise the men, and clothe, arm, and equip them, in a soldier-
like manner, at the expense of the United States; and the ofﬁcers and men so
clothed, armed, and equipped, shall march to the place appointed, and within the
time agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled : but if the United States,
in Congress assembled, shall, on consideration of circumstances, judge proper that
any state should not raise men, or should raise a smaller number than its quota, and
that any other state should raise a greater number of men than its quota thereof,
such extra number shall be raised, ofﬁcered, clothed, armed, and equipped in the
same manner as the quota of such state; unless the legislature of such state shall
judge that such extra number cannot be safely spared out of the same; in which
case they shall raise, oﬂicer, clothe, arm, and equip as many of such extra number
as they judge can be safely spared: and the ofﬁcers and men so clothed, armed, and
equipped, shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the
United States in Congress assembled.
The United States, in Congress assembled, shall never engage in a war; nor grant
letters of marque and reprisal in time of peace; nor enter into any treaties or alli-
ances; nor coin money; nor regulate the value thereof; nor ascertain the sums and
expenses necessary for the defence and welfare of the United States, or any of them;
nor emit bills; nor borrow money on the credit of the United States; nor appro-
priate money; nor agree upon the number of vessels of war to be built or purchased,
or the number of land or sea forces‘ to be raised ; nor appoint a Commander-in-Chief
of the army or navy; unless nine states assent to the same; nor shall a question on
any other point, except for adjourning from day to day, be determined, unless by
the votes of a majority of the United States in Congress assembled.
The Congress of the United States shall have power to adjourn to any time
within the year, and to any place within the United States, so that no period of ad-
journment be for a longer duration than the space of six months; and shall publish
the Journal of their proceedings monthly, except such parts thereof relating to
treaties, alliances, or military operations, as in their judgment require secrecy; and
160 POLITICAL HISTORY.
the yeas and nays of the delegates of each state on any question shall be entered on
the Journal, when it is desired by any delegate; and the delegates of a state, or any
of them, at his or their request, shall be furnished with a transcript of the said
Journal, except such parts as are above excepted, to lay before the legislatures of
the several states.
ARTICLE X. The committee of the states, or any nine of them, shall be author-
Ized to execute, in the recess of Congress, such of the powers of Congress as the
United States in Congress assembled, by the consent of nine states, shall from time
to time think expedient to vest them with; provided that no power be delegated to
the said committee, for the exercise of which, by the Articles of Confederation,
the voice of nine states in the Congress of the United States assembled is requisite.
ARTICLE XI. Canada, acceding to this Confederation, and joining in the measures
of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of
this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such ad-
mission be agreed to by nine states.
ARTICLE XII. All bills of credit emitted, moneys borrowed, and debts contracted
by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States,
in pursuance of the present Confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a
charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said
United States, and the public faith, are hereby solemnly pledged.
ARTICLE XIII. Every state shall abide by the determinations of the United States
in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this Confederation are submitted
to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by
every state; and the Union shall be perpetual. Nor shall any alteration at any
time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a
Congress of the United States, and be afterwards conﬁrmed by the legislatures of
every state. '
And whereas, it hath pleased the Great Governor of the world to incline the
hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and
to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union:
Know ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority
to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our
respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and conﬁrm each and every of the
said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters
and things therein contained. 'And we do further solemnly plight and engage the
faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of
the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Con-
federation are submitted to them; and that the articles thereof shall be inviolably
observed by the states we respectively represent; and that the Union shall be per-
petual. In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at
Philadelphia, in the state of Pennsylvania, the 9th day of July, in the year of our
Ldi'd 1778, and in the 3d year of the Independence of America.
CONSTITUTION
OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

WE, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.
ARTICLE I.
SECTION I.-—1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Con-
gress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Represent-
atives.
SECTION 2.-—1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members
chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each
state shall have the qualiﬁcations requisite for electors of the most numerous branch
of the state legislature.
2. No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of
twenty-ﬁve years, and been seven yearsa citizen of the United States, and who shall
not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
3. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states
. which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers,
which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including
those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-
ﬁfths of all other persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years
after the ﬁrst meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subse- _
quent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The, number
of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall
have at least one Representative; and, until such enumeration shall be made, the
state of New Hampshire shall be entitled ‘to choose three, Massachusetts eight,
11 (161)
162 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
q
Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut ﬁve, New York six, New ‘
Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North
Carolina ﬁve, South Carolina ﬁve, and Georgia three.
4. When vacancies happen in the representation from any state, the executive
authority thereof shall issue writs of election to ﬁll such vacancies.
5. The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other oﬁicers ;
and shall have the sole power of impeachment. ‘
SECTION 3.—-I. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Sena-
tors from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Sen’
ator shall have one vote.
2. Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the ﬁrst election,
they shall be divided‘, as equally as may be, into three classes. The seats of the
Senators of the ﬁrst class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year; of
the second class, at the expiration of the fourth year; and of the third class, at the
expiration of the sixth year; so that one-third may be chosen every second year;
and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legis-
lature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the
next meeting of the legislature, which shall then ﬁll such vacancies. '
3. No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thiity
years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when
elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.
4. The Vice-President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but
shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.
5. The Senate shall choose their other ofﬁcers, and also a President pro tempore,
in the absence of the Vice-President, or when he shall exercise the ofﬁce of President
of the United States.
6. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting
for that purpose, they shall be on oath or afﬁrmation. When the President of the
United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside; and no person shall be convicted
without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present.
7. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend fuither than to removal
from office, and disqualiﬁcation to hold and enjoy any oﬂice of honor, trust, or proﬁt,
under the United States; but the party convicted shall, nevertheless, be liable and
subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to law.
SECTION 4.—1. The times, places, and manner, of holding elections for Senators
and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof : but
the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such‘ regulations, except as to
the places of choosing Senators.
2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting
shall be on the ﬁrst Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a dif-
ferent day.
SECTION 5.--I. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and
qualiﬁcations of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum
to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be
authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under
such penalties, as each House may provide.
THE UNITED STATES. 1 63
2. Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its mem-
bers for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a
member.
3. Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and, from time to time,
publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in their judgment, require secrecy;
and the yeas and nays of the members of either House, on any question, shall, at the
desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.
4. Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of
the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which
the two Houses shall be sitting.
SECTION 6.—I. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation
for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United
States. They shall, in all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be
privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective
Houses, and in going to, and returning from, the same; and for any speech or de-
bate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
2. No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected,
be appointed to any civil ofﬁce under the authority of the United States, which shall
have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during
such time; and no person holding any ofﬁce under the United States, shall be a mem-
ber of either House during his continuance in office. I
SECTION 7.—I. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Rep-
resentatives ; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other
bills.
2. Every bill, which shall have passed the'House of Representatives and the Sen-
ate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States;
if he approve, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to
that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large
on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-
thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the
objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if
approved by two-thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases
the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of
the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each
House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten
days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be
a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress, by their adjourn-
ment, prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
3. Every order, resolution, or vote, to which the concurrence of the Senate and
House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment), '
shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall
take effect, shall be approved by him, or, being disapproved by him, shall be repassed
by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules
and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.
SECTION 8.-The Congress shall have power
164 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
I. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and ‘
provide for the common defence and general welfare, of the United States; but all
duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States:
2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States: .
3. To regulate commerce with foreign hations, and among the several states, and
' with the Indian tribes: ‘
4. To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject
of bankruptcies, throughout the United States: .
5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and ﬁx the
standard of weights and measures: '
6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current-
coin of the United States:
7. T o establish post-otﬁce‘s and post-roads:
8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing, for limited
times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and
discoveries :
9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court:
to. To deﬁne and punish piracies and felonies, committed on' the high seas, and
offences against the law of nations : C
II. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules con-
cerning captures on land and water:
12. To raise and suppdrt armies; but no appropriation of money to that use shall
be for a longer term than two years:
13. To provide and maintain a navy:
14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval
forces:
I 5. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, sup-
press insurrections, and repel invasions:
16.. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for gov-
erning such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States,
reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the ofﬁcers, and the authority
of training the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress:
17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district
(not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the
acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of_ the United States,
and to exercise like authority over all places, purchased by the consent of the legis~
lature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines,
arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings :—And
18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into exe-
cution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the
Government of the United States, or in any department or oflicer thereof.
SECTION 9.-—I. The migration or importation of such persons, as any of the
states, now existing, shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or
duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each
person.
THE UNITED STATES. 165
2. The privilege of the writ of Izabeas corpus shall notbe suspended, unless when,
in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.
3. No bill of attainder, or ex postfaeto law, shall be passed.
4. No capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid, unless in proportion to the
census or enumeration hereinfore directed to be taken.
5. No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. No preference
shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state
over those of another; nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to
enter, clear, or pay duties, in another. -
6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropria-
tions made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expen~
ditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
7. N 0 title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person,
holding any oﬂice of proﬁt or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the
Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever,
from any king, prince, or foreign state.
SECTION IO.-—I. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation;
grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any-
thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attain-
der, ex posz‘faez‘o law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title
of nobility.
2. No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties
on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its
inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on
imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all
such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress. No state
shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or
ships of war, in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another
state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such
imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
ARTICLE II. .
SECTION I.—-I. The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United
States of America. He shall hold his oﬂice during the term of four years, and to-
gether with the Vice-President, chosen for the same term, be elected as follows:
2. Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct,
a number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives,
to which the state may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representa-
tive, or person holding an oﬁice of trust or proﬁt, under the United States, shall be
appointed an‘ Elector.
3. The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two
persons, of whom one, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with
themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the
number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit, sealed,
to the seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the
166 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
.Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House
of Representatives, open all the certiﬁcates, and the votes shall then be counted.
The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such num-
ber be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if there be more
than one, who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the
House of Representatives shall immediately ‘choose, by ballot, one of them for
President; and if no person have a majority, then, from the ﬁve highest on the list,
the said House shall, in like manner, choose the President. But in choosing the
President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state hav-
ing one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from
two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to achoice.
In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest num-
ber of votes of the Electors shall be the Vice-President. But if there should remain
two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them, by ballot, the
Vice-President.
4. The Congress may determine the time of choosing the Electors, and the day
on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the
United States.
5. No person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at
the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of Presi-
dent; neither shall any person be eligible to that ofﬁce, who shall not have attained
to the age of thirty-ﬁve years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United
States. '
6. In case of the removal of the President from oﬁice, or of his death, resignation,
or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said ofﬁce, the same shall de-
volve on the Vice-President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of
removal, death, resignation, or inability, both of the President and Vice-President,
declaring what oﬁicer shall then act as President, and such ofﬁcer shall act accord-
ingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
7. The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation,
which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he
shall have been elected, and he shall not receive, within that period, any other
emolument from the United States, or any of them.
8. Before he enter on the execution of his ofﬁce, he shall take the following oath
or affirmation : -
9. -“ I do solemnly swear (or afiirm), that I will faithfully execute the Ofﬁce of
President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
SECTION 2.-—-I. The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the army and
navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into
the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of
the principal otﬁcer in each of the executive departments-upon any subject relating
to the duties of their respective ofﬁces, and he shall have power to grant reprieves
and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
2. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
THE UNITED STATES. 167
to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall
nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint
ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and
all other ofﬁcers of the United States whose appointments are not herein otherwise
provided for, and which shall be established by law : but the Congress may by law
vest the appointment of such inferior oﬂicers, as they think proper, in the President
alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
3. The President shall have power to ﬁll up all vacancies that may happen during
the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of
their next session.
SECTION 3.—I. He shall, from time to time, give to the Congress information of
the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he
shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene
both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with
respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall
think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take
' care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the ofﬁcers of the
United States.
SECTION 4.—I. The President, Vice-President, and all civil ofﬁcers of the
United States, shall be removed from oﬁice on impeachment for, and conviction of,
treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
ARTICLE III.
SECTION I.—I. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one
Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time,
ordain and establish.’ The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall
hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their
services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in
office.
SECTION 2.—I. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,
arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or
which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers, and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to
controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between
two or more states, betwen a state and citizens of another state, between citizens of
different states, between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of
different states, and between a state or the citizens thereof, and foreign states,
citizens, or subjects.
2. In all cases aﬂ'ecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and
those in which a state shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original
jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have
appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such
regulations as the Congress shall make. ‘
3. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and
such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed;
168 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
but when notcommitted within any state the trial shall be at .such place or places as
the Congress may by law have directed. -
SECTION 3.--I. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying
war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to
the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
2. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but
no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture, except dur-
ing the life of the person attaint'ed. '
ARTICLE Iv.
SECTION I.-—I. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public
acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may,
by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings
shall be proved, and the effect thereof. I
SECTION 2.-—I. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and
immunities of citizens in the several states.
2. A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall
ﬂee from justice, and be found in another state, shall, on demand of the executive
authority of the state from which he ﬂed, be delivered up, to be removed to the
state having jurisdiction of the crime.
3. No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escap-
ing into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be dis-
charged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party
to whom such service or labor may be due.
SECTION 3.-—,-I. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;
but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other
state; nor any state he formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of
states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of
the Congress.
2. The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and
regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States;
and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of _
the United States, or of any particular state.
SECTION 4.—-I. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a
republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion;
and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature
cannot be convened), against domestic violence.
ARTICLE V.
1. The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,
shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legisla-
tures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amend-
ments, which, in either case, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of
this Constitution, when ratiﬁed by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
THE UNITED STATES. 1 69
states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of
ratiﬁcation may be proposed by the Congress : provided that no amendment which
may be made priorto the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall, in any
manner, affect the ﬁrst and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the ﬁrst Article;
and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suﬂ‘rage in the
Senate. '
ARTICLE VI.
1. All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this
Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution as
under the Confederation. '
2. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in
pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the author-
ity of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in
every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state
to the contrary notwithstanding.
3. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the
several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial oFﬁcerS, both of the United
States and of the several states, shall be bound, by oath or aﬁirmation, to support
this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualiﬁcation to
any ofﬁce or public trust under the United States.
ARTICLE VII.
I. The ratiﬁcation of the conventions of nine states shall be suﬁicient for the estab-
lishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
AMENDMENTS To THE CONSTITUTION.
ARTICLE 1.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit-
ing the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of Speech, or of the press; or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a
redress of grievances.
ARTICLE II.
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right
of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
ARTICLE III.
No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent
of the owner; nor, in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. .
170 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
ARTICLE IV.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and eﬂ'ects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated‘; and no warrants
shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or aﬁ’irmation, and particularly
gescribing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.
ARTICLE V.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous, crime, un¢
less on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the
land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service, in time of war or public
danger; nor shall any person be subject, for the same offence, to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a wit-
ness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due pro-
cess of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just com-
pensation.
ARTICLE VI.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall
have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law;
and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with
the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in
his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
ARTICLE VII.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dol-
lars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury, shall
be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the
rules of the common law.
ARTICLE VIII.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive ﬁnes imposed, norcruel and
unusual punishments inﬂicted.
ARTICLE IX.
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to
deny or disparage others retained by the people.
ARTICLE X.*
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
ARTICLE XL-j-
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any

*The ﬁrst ten Amendments were proposed by Congress, September 25, 1789, and declared in
force December 15, I791.
1' Proposed by Congress March 5, 1794, declared in force January 8, 1798.
THE UNITED STATES. 171
suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by
citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.
ARTICLE XII. *
I. The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for Presi-
dent and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the
same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as
President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President; and they
shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons
voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they
shall sign, and certify, and transmit, sealed, to the seat of the Government of the
United States, directed to the President of the Senate; the President of the Senate
shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the
certiﬁcates, and the votes shall then be counted; the person having the greatest
number of votes for President shall be the President, if such number he a majority
of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such a majority,
then, from the persons having the highest numbers, not exceeding three, on the list
of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose imme-
diately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be
taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for
this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and
a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Rep-
resentatives shall not choose a President, whenever the right of choice shall devolve
upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President
shall act as President, as in case of the death, or other constitutional disability, of
the President. ‘
2. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President shall be the
Vice-President, if such number he a majority of the whole number of Electors ap-
pointed; and if no person have a majority, then, from the two highest numbers on
the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall
consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators; a majority of the whole num-
ber shall be necessary to a choice.
3. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the ofﬁce of President shall be
eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
ARTICLE XIIL’r
SECTION I.--Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the
United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
SECTION 2.—Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

Proposed by Congress December 12, 1803, declared in force September 25, 1804.
1' Proposed by Congress February 1, 1865, declared in force December 18, 1865.
17 2 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
ARTICLE XIV.*
SECTION I.-All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein
they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privi-
leges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any per-
son within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
SECTION 2.——Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states ac-
cording to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each
state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right‘to vote at any election 'for
the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Repre~
sentatives in Congress, the executive and judicial ofﬁcers of a state, or the members
of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state,
being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way ab-
ridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis-of representa~
tion therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male
citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in
such state.
SECTION 3.—-No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any oﬂice, civil or military, under _
the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a
member of Congress, or as an OfﬁCCI' of the United States, or as a member of any
state legislature, or as an executive or judicial ofﬁcer of any state, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion
against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may,
by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
SECTION 4.-—The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by
law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in
suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the
United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in
aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss
or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations, and claims-shall be
held illegal and void.
SECTION 5.—-The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legisla-
tion, the provisions of this article. ‘
ARTICLE XVrj-

SECTION I.—-The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or pre-
vious condition of servitude.
SECTION 2.—-The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation. I ~
* Proposed by Congress June 16, 1866, declared in force July 28, 1868.
1' Proposed by Congress February 26, 1869, declared in force March 30, 1870.
THE UNITED STATES. 178
ACTION OF THE CONVENTION AFTER AGREEING ON A
CONSTITUTION.
IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, MONDAY, September 17, 1787.
Present: The States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Mr. Hamilton
from New York, New jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.
Resolved, ‘That the preceding Constitution be laid before the United States in Con-
gress assembled, and that it is the opinion of this convention that it should after-
wards be submitted to a Convention of delegates, chosen in each state by the people
thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratiﬁcation;
and that each convention, assenting to and ratifying the same, should give notice
thereof to the United States in Congress assembled.
]I)(’.§0/'Z/c’(/, That it is the opinion of this Convention, that as soon as the conventions
of nine states shall have ratiﬁed this Constitution, the United States in Congress
assembled should ﬁx a day on which electors should be appointed by the states
which shall have ratiﬁed the same, and a day on which the electors should assemble
to vote for the President, and the time and place for commencing proceedings un-
der this Constitution. That after such publication the electors should be appointed,
and the Senators and Representatives elected; that the electors should meet On the
day ﬁxed for the election of the President, and Should transmit their votes certiﬁed,
Signed, sealed, and directed as the Constitution requires, to the Secretary of the
United States in Congress assembled; and that the Senators and Representatives
should convene at the time and place assigned; that the Senators should appoint a
president Of the Senate, for the sole purpose of receiving, opening, and counting the
votes for President; and that, after he shall be chosen, the Congress, together with
the President, should, without delay, proceed to execute this Constitution.
By‘ the unanimous order of the Convention.
GEORGE \VASHINGTON, Presz'a’enz‘.
WILLIAM JACKSON, Seeretaiy.
WASHINGTON SUBMITS THE CONSTITUTION To CONGRESS.
IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, Sepeemeer I7, r787.
SIR: We have now the honor to submit to the consideration of the United States
in' Congress assembled that Constitution which has appeared to us the most ad-
visable.
The friends of our country have long seen and desired that the power of making
war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the
Correspondent executive and judicial authorities should be fully and effectually
vested in the General Government of the Union ; but the impropriety of delegating
such extensive trust to one body of men is evident: hence results the necessity of a
different organization.
174 POLITICAL HISTORY.
It is obviously impracticable, in the Federal Government of these States, to secure
all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and
safety of all. Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to
preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacriﬁce must depend as well on situation
and circumstance as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difﬁcult to draw
with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered and those
which may be reserved; and on the present occasion this difﬁculty was increased
by a difference among the several states as to their situation, extent, habits, and par-
ticular interests.
‘In all our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that which
appears to us the greatest interest of every true American—the consolidation of our
Union—in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national
existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our
minds, led each state in the Convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magni-
tude than might have been otherwise expected; and thus the Constitution which we
now present is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and con-
cession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.
That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every state is not, perhaps, to
be expected; but each will doubtless consider that, had her interest been alone con~
sulted, the consequences might have been particularly disagreeable or injurious to
others; that it is liable to as few exceptions as could reasonably have been expected,
we hope and believe; that it may promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear
to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish.
\Vith great respect, we have the honor to be, sir, your excellency’s most obedient,
humble servants.
By unanimous order of the Convention.
GEORGE \VASHINGTON, I’rr'sz'dmz’.
His Excellency the PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS.
FAREWELL ADDRESS
OF
GEORGE WASHINGTON, PRESIDENT,
TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, September 175 1796.
Friends and Fellozu-cz'tzzens:
The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the Executive Govern-
ment of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when
your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with
that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more
distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolu-
tion I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of
whom a choice is to be made.
I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution
has not been taken withouta strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to
the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that, in withdrawing
the tender of service, which silence, in my situation, might imply, I am inﬂuenced
by no diminution of zeal for your future interest; no deﬁciency of grateful respect
for your past kindness; but am supported by a full conviction that the step is com-
patible with both.
The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suﬂ'rages
have twice called me, have been a uniform sacriﬁce of inclination to the opinion of
duty, and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped
that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which
I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been
reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last
election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but ma-
ture reﬂection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign
nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my conﬁdence, impelled
me to abandon the idea. ' .
I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer
renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propri-
ety; and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in
the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination
to retire.
(175)
176 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
The impressions with which I ﬁrst undertook the arduous trust were explained on
the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say, that I have with
good intentions contributed towards the organization and administration of the Gov-
ernment the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not
unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualiﬁcations, experience, in my
own eyes—perhaps still more in the eyes of others—has strengthened the motives to
diﬁ'idence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me,
more and more, that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be wel-
come. Satisﬁed, that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services,
they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and pru-
dence invite‘ me to quit _the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.
In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my
public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of
that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has
conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast conﬁdence with which it has sup-
ported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my
inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness
unequal to my zeal. If beneﬁts have resulted to our country from these services, let
it always be remembered to your praise and as an instructive example in our annals,
that, under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were
liable to mislead; amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune
often discouraging; in situations in which, not unfrequently, want of success has
countenanced the spirit of criticism,-—the constancy of your support was the essen-
tial prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans, by which they were effected.
Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong
incitement to unceasing vows, that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens
of its beneﬁcence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that
the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained;
that its administration, in every department, may be stamped with wisdom and vir-
tue ; that, in ﬁne, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of
liberty, may be made complete, by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of
this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause,
the affection, and the adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.
Here, perhaps, I ought to stop; but a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot
end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude, urge
me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and
to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments, which are the result of
much reﬂection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-im-
portant to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be afforded to
you with the more freedom, as you can only ‘see in them the disinterested warnings of
a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel; nor
can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments
on a former and not dissimilar occasion. '
Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recom-
mendation of mine is necessary to fortify or conﬁrm the attachment. '
THE UNITED STATES. 177
The unity of government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to
you. It is justly so ; for it is a main pillar in the ediﬁce of your real independence
—the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your
prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to fore-
see that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken,
many artiﬁces employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth, as this
is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and ex-
ternal enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidi-
ously) directed—it is of inﬁnite moment that you should properly estimate the immense
value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you
Should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it, accustoming your-
selves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and pros-
perity ; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever
may suggest even a suspicion that it can, in any event, be abandoned; and indignantly
frowning upon the ﬁrst dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our
country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the
various parts. I
For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth
or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affec-
tions. The name of A merz'ean, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must
always exalt the just pride of patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local
discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, man-
ners, habits, and political principles. You have, in a common cause, fought and
triumphed together ; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint
counsels and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.
But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sen-
sibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your
interest; here every portion of our country ﬁnds the most commanding motives for
carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.
The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with . the South, protected by the equal
laws of a common government, ﬁnds, in the productions of the latter, great additional '
resources of maritime and commercial enterprise, and precious materials of manu-
facturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, beneﬁting by the agency of
the North, sees its agriculture grow, and its commerce expand. Turning partly into
its own channels the seamen of the North, it ﬁnds its particular navigation invigo-
rated; and while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the gen-
eral mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime
strength to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in like intercourse with the
West, already ﬁnds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communication, by
land and water, will more and more ﬁnd, a valuable vent for the commodities which
it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East
supplies requisite to its growth and comfort; and what is perhaps of still greater con-
sequence, it must, of necessity, owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets .
for its own productions, to the weight, inﬂuence, and the future maritime strength
of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest
12 .
17 8 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advan~
tage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and un-
natural connexion with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.-
While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular in-
terest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to ﬁnd, in the united mass of
means and efforts, greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security
from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations;
and what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from
those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently aﬁlict neighboring
countries, not tied together by the same government; which their own rivalships
alone would be sufﬁcient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attach-
ments, and intrigues, would stimulate and imbitter. Hence, likewise, they will
avoid the necessity of those over-grown military establishments, which, under any
form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as
particularly hostile to republican liberty; in this sense it is that your union ought to
be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to
endear to you the preservation of the other.
These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reﬂecting and virtuous
mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic de-
sire. Is there a doubt, whether a common government can embrace so large a
sphere P Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation, in such a case,
were criminal. We are authorized to hope, that a proper organization of the whole,
with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford
a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With
such powerful and obvious motives to Union, affecting all parts of our country,
while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always
be reason to distrust the patriotism of those, who, in any quarter, may endeavor to
weaken its bands.
In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs, as a matter
of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing
parties by geographical discriminations—Northern and Southern—Atlantic and
Western: whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real
difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire
inﬂuence within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other
districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart-
burnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to
each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The in-
habitants of our western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they
have seen in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratiﬁcation by
the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event
throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions
propagated among them, of a policy in the General Government, and in the Atlantic
States, unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi: they have been wit-
nesses to the formation of two treaties—that with Great Britain, and that with Spain,
which secure to them everything they could desire in respect to our foreign rela-
THE UNITED STATES. 179
tions, towards conﬁrming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for
the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured?
Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would‘
sever them from their brethren, and connect them with aliens?
To the efﬁcacy and permanency of your Union, a Government for the whole is
indispensable. N o alliance, however strict between the parts, can be an adequate
substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which
all alliances, in all time, have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you
have improved upon your ﬁrst essay, by the adoption of a Constitution of Govern-
ment better calculated than your former for an intimate Union, and for the eﬁ’icacious
management of your common concerns. This Government, the offspring of our
own choice, uninﬂuenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature
deliberation, completely free in its principles, in- the distribution of its powers, unit-
ing security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amend-
ment, has a just claim to your conﬁdence and your support. Respect for its authority,
compliance with its laws,_acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the
fundamental maxims of true liberty. The bases of our political systems, is the right
of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of Government: but the Con-
stitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of
the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power, and
the right of the people to establish Government, pre—supposes the duty of every in-
dividual to obey the established Government.
All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations,
under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counter-
act, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are
destructive to this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to or-
ganize faction, to give it an artiﬁcial and extraordinary force, to put in the place of
the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and
enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs
of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted
and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and whole-
some plans, digested by common counsels, and modiﬁed by mutual interests.
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then
answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become
potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men, will be enabled
to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of Govern-
ment; destroying, afterwards, the very engines which had lifted them to unjust
dominion. * _
Towards the preservation of your Government, and the permanency of your pres-
ent happy state, it is requisite, not‘ only that you steadily discountenance irregular
oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit
of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of
assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will im~
pair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly over-
thrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and
180 , POLITICAL HISTORY OF
habit are at least as necessary to ﬁx the true character of governments as of other
human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real -
tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the
credit: of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the end-
less variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the effi-
cient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a
Government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is
indispensable. Liberty itself will ﬁnd in such a Government, with powers properly
distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name,
where the Government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to con-
ﬁne each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to’
maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and
property.-
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular
reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now
take a more comprehensive view, and warn you, in the most solemn manner, against
the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the
strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes, in all Gov-
ernments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular
form it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of
revenge, natural to party dissension, which, in different ages and countries, has per-
petrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads,
at length, to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries
which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the
absolute power of an individual; and, sooner or later, the chief of some prevailing
faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to
the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which, nevertheless, ought
not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit
of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage
and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public adminis-
tration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms;
kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments, occasionally, riot and
insurrection. It opens the door to foreign inﬂuence and corruption, which ﬁnd a
facilitated access to the Government itself, through the channels of party passions.
Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will
of another.
There is an opinion that parties, in free countries, are useful checks upon the
administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty.
This, within certain limits, is probably true ; and in Governments of a monarchical
cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party.
But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit
THE UNITED STATES. 181
not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always
be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger
of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage
it. A ﬁre not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting
into a ﬂame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking, in a free country, should in-
spire caution in those intrusted with its administration, to conﬁne themselves within
their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding, in the exercise of the powers of
one department, to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to
consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever
the form of Government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power,
and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart, is sufﬁcient to
satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the
exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories,
and constituting each the guardian of the public weal, against invasions by the others,
has been evinced by experiments, ancient and modern; some of them in our own
country, and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to in-
stitute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modiﬁcation of the
constitutional powers be, in any particular, wrong, let it be corrected by an amend-
ment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no ehange by
usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the
customary weapon by which free Governments are destroyed. The precedent must
always greatly overbalance, in permanent evil, any partial or transient beneﬁt which
the use can, at any time, yield.
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to ‘political prosperity, religion and ,
morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of
patriotism, who ‘should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness,
these ﬁrmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally
with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not
trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it Simply be asked,
where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious
obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of
justice?- And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be
maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of
reﬁned education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both for-
bid us to expect that natural morality can prevail in exclusion of religious prin-
ciples.
It is substantially true, that virtue ’or morality is a necessary spring of popular
Government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of
free Government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference
upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric ?
Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general
diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a Government gives force
to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.
.As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One
182 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding occasions of
expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to
prepare for danger, frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoid-
ing, likewise, the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense,
but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable
wars may‘ have occasioned; not ‘ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden
which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs, to your
representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facili-
tate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically
bear in mind,that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have
revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or
less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from
the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difﬁculties) ought to
be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the Government in
making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue,
which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.
Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony
with all; religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy
does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no dis-
tant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel ex-
ample of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can
doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly
repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it?
Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with
its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which
ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices ?
In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent
inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for
others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings
towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an
habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is, in some degree, a slave. It is a slave
to its animosity or to its affection; either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from
its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another, disposes each
more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and
to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or triﬂing occasions of dispute occur.
Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation,
prompted by ill will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government,
contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates
in the national propensity, and adopts, through passion, what reason would reject;
at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility,
instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The
peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim.
So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation to another produces a variety
of evils. , Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary
common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into
THE UNITED STATES. 183
one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels
and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also
to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt
doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with
what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposi-
tion to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it
gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the
favorite nation) facility to betray, or sacriﬁce the interest of their own country, with-
out odium; sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearance of a vir-
tuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable
zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or
infatuation.
As avenues to foreign inﬂuence in innumerable ways, such attachments are par-
ticularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many
opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the art of
seduction, to mislead public opinion, to inﬂuence or awe the public councils! Such
an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the
former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign inﬂuence (I conjure you to believe me,
fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since
history and experience prove that foreign inﬂuence is one of the most baneful foes
of republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else
it becomes the instrument of the very inﬂuence to be avoided, instead of a defence
against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike for
another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve
to veil, and even second, the arts of inﬂuence on the other. Real patriots, who may
resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while
its tools and dupes usurp the applause and conﬁdence of the people to surrender
their interests.
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our
commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So
far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulﬁlled with perfect good
faith. Here let us stop.
Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote
relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which
are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us
to implicate ourselves, by artiﬁcial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics,
or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different
course. If we remain one people, under an efﬁcient Government, the period is not
far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take
such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon, to be
scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making
acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may
choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
184 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation '1’ Why quit our own ‘to
stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any
part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition,
rivalship, interest, humor, or Caprice ?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances‘ with any portion of the
foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be
understood as capable of patronising inﬁdelity to existing engagements. I hold the
'maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always
, the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their
genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary, and would be unwise to ex-
tend them.
Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable
defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary
emergencies.
Harmony, and a liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy,
humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and
impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; con-
sulting the natural course of things ; diffusing and diversifying, by gentle means, the
streams of commerce, but forcing nothing ;. establishing, with powers so disposed, in
order to give trade a stable course, to deﬁne the rights of our merchants, and to en-
able the Government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best
that present circumstances and mutual opinions will permit, but temporary, and
liable to be, from time to time, abandoned or' varied, as experience and circum-
stances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look
for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay, with a portion of its inde-
pendence, for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance
it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors,
and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be
no greater error than to expect, or calculate upon, real favors from nation to na-
tion.’ It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to
discard. -
In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate
friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could
wish ; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation
from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations; but if I
may even ﬂatter myself that they may be productive of some partial beneﬁt, some
occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party
spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigues, to guard against the impos-
tures of pretended patriotism ; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude
for your welfare by which they have been dictated.
How far, in the discharge of my oﬁ’icial duties, I have been guided by the prin-
ciples which have been delineated, the public -records, and other evidences of my
conduct, must witness to you and the world. To myself, the assurance of my own
conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.
In relation to_ the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the 22d of
THE UNITED STATES. 185
April, 1793, is the index to my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and
by that of your Representatives in both Houses of Congress, the spirit of that meas-
ure has continually governed me, uninﬂuenced by any attempts to deter or divert me
from it.
After "deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, 1
was well satisﬁed that our country, under all the, circumstances of the case, had a
right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Hav-
ing taken it I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it with
moderation, perseverance, and ﬁrmness.
The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not neces-
sary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe, that, according to my under-
standing of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent
powers, has been virtually admitted by all.
The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without any thing more,
from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in
which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards.
other nations.
The inducements of interest, for observing that conduct, will best be referred to
your own reﬂections and experience. With me, a predominant motive has been to
endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions,
and to progress, without interruption, to that degree of strength and consistency
which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.
'Though in reviewing. the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of in-
tentional error; I am, nevertheless, too sensible of my defects not to think it prob-
able that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently
beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall
also carry with me the hope, that my country will never cease to view them with
indulgence; and that, after forty-ﬁve years of my life dedicated to its service with
an upright zeal,'the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as
_myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.
Relying on its kindness in this, as in other things, and actuated by that fervent
love towards it which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of him-
self and his progenitors for several generations, Ianticipate, with pleasing expecta-
tion, that retreat in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet en-
joyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign inﬂuence of
good laws under a free Governmente-the ever favorite object of my heart—and the
happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.
GEORGE WASHINGTON.
UNITED STATES, 17th Septemhr, r796.
iii“ 1
- ‘It,
if.
‘i
. rt I I i l
I illlllltl v‘ |‘' > (‘I 5‘I
l "x ‘,l‘ I i i I:
\ ill‘ ‘ i ‘if-
i ' |
l I .
l
' . in :1: z‘ i I- ;- ~ . = . -r;- :i -'w i .. l l 15%. ‘ii iii 11%’ 1 i " - ‘mlliiiil' i ii,‘ I will!“
Iii . " .'= i '
,f j . I‘, l I ll‘! ii tug“. ll] ll‘,
Ill i ~:"| tun
Ii ' H :;- l 1 I ul
,|
l l |
H H || |
I 11| l i
ll -
. '4'
l I i l ' _ l ‘ .
i \1 , '
‘ii 0
by
i“ ‘ll
l
l ' l i» »
i I! q l
\
H
/
‘ v ' . j I . _ . \

l
l
ll: Ill!
Ill, ,. ,
l
l '4
Q
: <1
Ii ' ' I " B
l l -| i _ u E—t
yI . ‘i==! ‘ 5."; I »-J
O
E"
H
a,
<1
U
...’ L
) j
l
1
l
. 1|
~ Ill‘ "
I
lull i

It“
.. ._ _ '»-1*-— --—~: ..
35 - " T? Tf"“'"'"‘iEi-- 5‘ it .“K 1 “ l'gliiu v‘ ‘rim _ﬁ
-- I - ' lyl‘h I
. - n an
7. ll. '5‘;— ‘Jl-vnmuu‘lil y
' -=_ .e . L, " l I a‘ ‘.‘Lf‘é' 9111. "i 5 EH‘ ' ‘
:- iq‘if” é .
\Jwcu-‘Y ‘"1- l ‘ I" 'E ‘ i A ' \
::::::=i- ' -
saznlss ‘W: .
l I j 21:. 4;‘-j"".':';:.'-.\‘ ‘ I" ..._l. ., _ __‘_ l:
. 1'. _ i, ‘ t . l j l '1 ' i l‘ i
I j 1 II ,, ‘BC-ll‘ ,} ‘I ‘ .
l l] ' ‘5311 =‘- ' '7
l .. . |i, , __ . jut:
ll ' I ‘it. ‘i. ' ' it 1' ~' "in '
I ll; ‘ hi i 5' i .::. q, i :; 1 -
r 'a -, l.‘ i ,,
ill I | ‘ill I ‘g ‘l i; . 1. , l 2 1' .
| ._ I j l | H l- ‘l
' ll l' ' l‘ l i ‘| lllwif‘l ii.
I II i I 1 ‘i ll flit ‘ l I
= ' A‘ . ‘ -. t- ' ‘.l‘, 111115,
' 1 -II I I‘ .! ‘tr .| 1,21.‘ ‘l \
' I .='. l a I" ii 1
i [ll '. V I ‘u’ \ L .1,‘ IV‘.
. iiil " | I ' ' if?“ if‘! Ha
- 1| I ' ' "' , |i~ if ‘ i l | l J‘ ‘l ‘ 1 .
‘ ll ' ,. . .. "1TH"! , l
l j I ' llll'rs» Ia‘hi ‘ 3 '. “
‘ ‘ ‘Evil? ‘22:? ‘l. ‘ I
. , ' will 'ﬁ‘y "‘f'j'ﬁl' "ml?
u I F'ill‘lil till.‘ ~ ' ‘
_ _ . : '15..‘ -" ‘Lil Z‘ I
’ 5
l
OUR PLAN OF GOVERNMENT; i
THE THREE GREAT BRANCHES; FULL DESCRIPTION
OF EACH BRANCH; ALL THE DEPARTMENTS AT
WASHINGTON; ENTIRE GOVERNMENT MACHINERY.


THREE GREAT BRANCHES—Our government
_ is divided by the Constitution into three distinct branches
or departments, the Legislative, the Executive, and the
judicial. The existence of these departments is neces-
sary for the energy and stability of the government.
Their separation is necessary for the preservation of public lib-
erty and private rights. When they are all united in one person
or one body of men, that government is a despotism. The ﬁrst
resolution adopted by the Convention which framed the Con-
stitution was that “ a national government ought to be established
consisting of a supreme legislative, judiciary and executive.”
THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT.
This department Consists of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, and these two are called the Congress. The
Senate is sometimes called the Upper House, and the House of
Representatives the Lower House. The latter is also known as
“ the House,” in contrast to “ the Senate.” In the Constitution
they are spoken of as “ each House,” the “ two Houses,” “both
Houses.” The Constitution gives to the Congress the power to -
make all laws, and withholds that power from the other depart—
ments. It is a representative body, and is supposed to do what the
people would do if they were assembled in deliberative meeting to
187


_ .
"El'sllllf"


“D
‘I.


. .. , "-"'“‘="
‘ Y'lrflllplll'll‘llll l" .‘ \
slurp/[Jill til‘. "i r ., . ‘ . \'.
.llialllltfril'llllvllll ,il"",'.~..trr53ll \ ‘; a‘
Immll l ‘fill-ill. Phi‘ ".‘tli‘i' .j x ‘
r-Mtnﬁ'tgnj .jﬂhllurl g, \ liqw-y-Fkm l; ,1‘ ‘M ‘
' ‘Willi-m-llllall.. l.*llllllllll‘tlllli with?» = -
\\ “I Irish“ wilyrrhllifmiuwli"riipv‘irll. {r _ l , 2.7.x‘
' a’ "ll" lllllrllllrrill-st.trill;. ‘ ~ Lullllll‘ml HIM u; up, llhmtlllm "ﬁlm ;l|tr\m,dn~“ﬁ“r‘ﬂ}r‘t , .' I l‘ _
‘rm’. ..' r;rllurt~.grrjrrrtn_llt_hrlgrl mar.“ ' " .; f it
9"" E ~__—~__—;-
' ‘ I; ' "ill ‘ ‘1;. r‘ t
A‘??? lltrrww" ‘ '1 ‘ - . . . t . _ - r1 ' ‘ l3”? “llllll'. ‘hi-57:‘ '
. llllrlllmlwl '‘ l llitr ' l llllll lli'llr, 1 r ‘ llllll “ll” ht-
W3 " r =.
"ills l .2 ,. | .r l?‘ ‘i525; i513,‘
‘ c s - ‘ ll } till? " ‘krill-{twili- .r ‘ "'l‘ ‘r ls 12ml ll"
iv ,7 1 I'll" ‘M ﬁrst‘? ‘- ll h
._\t l__.
\ 45".
“1,.


l
'Miillr filthy-.2‘! ‘l ‘r’? rimming“ l a." 3_
' ‘.l up!“ mu “
L _ ﬁf’vxt: ‘ '
‘ills; i‘ ‘
a. ‘f
A g’bfggti‘i


1
u - .
R
r/


1;; mllllll
" 'f \_l l,’
. ll
uiilrijé‘tilt;
s ‘r .l 1*
r l .
ll’fll" e h “I r
'§'*"‘-~" ‘; e 3 I
“" “Ml; 1 V p .
"—-'— 1,
\‘Xmﬁx'inixxixéum‘Rxaisrmxsawﬁaaﬁlgiic‘g‘twgQ‘BQQQQ-égyggguigw§ZggggliI ff \‘ ‘i LE
:.‘\:\


Illllll
‘1 r haul
1% "tial/"tr "
M iv l


‘I H _ \l'.


1;“; l‘
“H
r r - 7 > 1- r", r
\ \ rt ' ‘
x n I] Jtkjl'i ‘ r , , ' j J:
J‘ ll ‘ I
, r‘ “ r can“ ,
min :I i “I '_'_1 v i ll’ J
I'l ‘nit L ' ' r l
-_;__=__ ‘ I i I


q tits};
I rumor-11' lllif‘tlll
;,-._
.5.
‘ t- I'-


.‘ h" 2‘ A‘ / . ,...
I r, v‘ll: Mr J! , ._. . . ill'ﬂl't' run -
. I‘ l "l p i jl/j' : m‘ ‘_ I“ I‘ 7%.: \‘mm: _‘i “ "a? :ll" ‘ ll‘ "Quin .
1 ll i1 gang ~ lrl-llIlll!tlLL_.. _.-,.,_rrr ‘.
fr —~ ~ ~ | ‘


.Frtjl.“,\:~7/?-x~~.rrgfwas: ‘ , *
" ’lr"-‘“Y-.~."»tlﬁ.' ‘ilk’? I
- --\‘- w ‘."’‘'2- 1*‘121.


‘a; l
‘\h 1; I; "'_’v/L/[:Ei)lv Fi'u‘i-
____________. .__,'
l'l'l' ru'mtrlnlnl r "
l" Plum‘, ’"~
ill-h that C
ll!
ll
_- s ,2, "15:3 _..
milk-girl} “5%
With .1
r r a" \ -
t “,1 L


{T

-vv
‘ .4


_-_
M)‘


\


'tnll . |
trl‘r‘llltm
l 7
‘71' r Y
\
v


l
l l
" l
l


l


"I" ll lllllllll Hill I


‘_ ' i H‘ l
" ;‘ ~ , I u ‘ :J i 1"??-
I .r a r‘.»-;1rlq»,u11"' r L‘ 1,, j , i .’.'""r
1 . Inmljlhl . 9. .--.-;' :llrrfxmlrl n m 1 "l "
l " V _ | .1 l 311;"
; tars .rrlra it e- "4‘ ~
h j r‘
‘era " ' "
‘I Hill!twill]llllllllllm llltlyltuur |le< t"fiii»-dillFill}stsrlllittlfir’ g as, 1 114a? .[ -.
" 5/1.; !;Hr*~llliil’li‘,W,their. ‘,1. ‘1.; 1a,,‘ gllllltllllll'lllrlltlr lllllllllll i {'53 l "i ,‘f, l i .
j ' .1’ r}; ,pllll'ﬁl, I‘; Illllil'Hl'il] ‘P . 197m, j , “1",, lrlpwmll ‘ er.‘- : I » F 1 ‘_._ ,-
wi'rr, fr tpglr'lrll llgrlrtr gtjllgrr 5'jl...pl;iiillil{(l "will! . n ‘plat 1 -:-s
\ “ks/If! .- l: ,1 1ll-tmrflllwlrlln {l- r'r’yl: I'll. t ; K1‘Pdﬂlli'll'l.tiilll’lljwjl\i-
1 ‘r ; ~1
‘w .-
~-'~. »" .i ,1" Mr v~<~ wru tr" “ -" ='.
w’; an, . - hurt-rllllrwlllilhl‘ ~- . ‘Mil “:3‘. +4.‘:- uranium...‘ r .turfgiizgllmlllqt.Multan-5,, g _ 11,5, 41%;‘. 1 iii--
r‘‘' > - 1;," 'l‘ L1,; ' ' ' _" ' -'_ tun‘; , in'“ "I.
p A.’ .. raw-z *3 ‘ Flu!" t "r" ‘i
~* * 1i’. _I_“_I_‘I_‘:__I_':_‘j j . f‘+’~-._-_=:;_~ _-_...L.- ~::.—_-f_~'-A~--‘- ‘Any-"(IA ‘1'11’;
' .. . "' I -1_ _'_; '_ ‘,"_‘_‘~’;._"L_"_‘QEKLEETTE"*Wfgghjtigw‘ -‘HQEBLFHHIZIIHMIlliiiﬂh‘H'tm'wiﬂl-lmi'rll’zllmmila' ,‘Egijﬁr? (‘F-'35:."
.jrmllrl ll'iltmrcannnts:umuzrmnnlllnusanmlralll [IImomunamrmtonnmsrulnimllllna111mm]_ "mull
‘illjgildl ‘lib-xix“ "iHmmilléI‘IQlHHEWEEEﬁIﬁ&IEIIHItlr1|mumlmmnmnnumnmnrrmmmmnwummmmﬁﬁ 4 7| _ ‘l

murnmnmu lrlllrél
The Bronze Door in the Capitol Commemorating the events in the
Life of Christopher Columbus.
t


188
POLITICAL HISTORY. 189
enact laws for their government. The Congress meets in regular
session, according to the Constitution, on the ﬁrst Monday in
December, each year; but the President may call extra Sessions
when necessary. The two Houses not only meet on the same
day, but neither can adjourn without the consent of the other for
more than three days at a time, nor to any other place than that
of regular meeting, now the capitol at Washington. The Presi-
dent may however change the place of meeting to avoid plague
or other danger. Congresses themselves run by odd years, like -
‘the administrations. The 50th Congress met in ﬁrst regular
Session Dec. (Ist Monday), 1887. This ﬁrst session of any Con-
gress is called “ the long Session.” It may end at any time dur-
ing the next year, prior to December. The “long session”
usually runs to july or August of aneven year. The second
Session of a Congress is called the “ short session.” It meets in_
December of an even year and ends by limitation on March 3d
of an odd year. Thus elections for President and for Congress—
men occur in even years. Administrations and Congresses
begin and end in odd years.
' 'THE SEN/l T E—This branch or House of Congress is com-
posed of two Senators from each State. There are now thirty-
eight States. Multiply 38 by 2 and you have the number of
United States Senators. It seems somewhat unfair that a large
and populous State like New York should have no greater
representation in the National Senate than small States like‘
‘Delaware and Rhode Island. But this result was one of the
necessary compromises of the Constitution. The Senate is built
on the theory of State representation, the House of-Representa-
tives on the theory of popular or people representation. Senators
are elected for six years. No man can be a Senator who is not
thirty years old, who has not been a citizen of the United States
for nine years, and who is not an inhabitant of the State for
which he is chosen. .
The Senate ‘is regarded as a more digniﬁed and honorable
body than the House of Representatives. Its very name (from
sen‘az‘us, which is from senex, old) presumes an older and graver
membership. It is further removed. from the populace. It does
190 POLITICAL 'HISTORY.
not need to represent the ﬁckle will of the masses, but the higher
and more deliberative wish of the States, which are its constit-
uency. As a law-making branch of the Congress it is equal
with the House, except that it cannot originate bills* for raising
revenue. Revenue bills must, according to the Constitution,
originate in the House of Representativesﬁl’ No bill can become
a law till it has received the approval of a majority in both
Houses, and been approved by the President. '
The Senate has powers beyond those which are purely legisla-
tive, and is therefore stronger in this respect than the lower
House. It is a part of the Executive branch for the purpose of
making appointments to office. All executive nominations for
office must be approved by the Senate before they are ﬁnal.
The Senate may reject such nominations and compel the Presi-
dent to send in other names. When the Senate is sitting to de-
liberate on the President’s nominations it is said to be in Execu-
tive session. So the Senate in connection with the President
constitutes the Treaty-making power of the government. When
the- Senate is sitting to deliberate on Treaties or other delicate
matters it is said to be in “ secret session.” Further the Senate
is the court before which impeachment cases are heard and by
which they are determined. The Vice-President of the United
States is the presiding ofﬁcer of the Senate, but has no vote ex-
cept when there is a tie. This presiding ofﬁcer is called the
‘President of the Senate. If the Vice-President should die or
his seat be vacant for any cause, the Senate elects a President
from its own members. As a matter of fact the Senate is never-
* An act when ﬁrst presented to either House and up until the time of its passage
is called a “bill.” After its passage it is an “act” or “law.” Acts which are
merely declarative of the intent of either House and binding on it, but which do not
_bear directly on the people at large, are called “ Resolutions; ” if passed by both
Houses and binding on both they are called “ joint Resolutions.”
. 1- The jurisdiction of the two Houses over this point gives rise to frequent contro-
versies. During the 2d session of 47th Congress the Senate originated, debated and
passed a Tariff bill on its own account. This proceeding was objected to by the
House, but as the ﬁnal bill (the act of March 3, 1883) was the result of a confer-
ence of both Houses, much time was saved by the Senate action and no harm was
done. -
'HHHWVHI) HLVNEIS SHLVJLS (IELLINII 3H1.


IL‘ ‘tub.
'
i
j ' . ‘tiftii
* . r-
2" ‘
.ﬂ.

192 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
‘without a President pro term, that officer being important as a
possible President of the United States, in case of the death, resig-
nation, removal or disability of both President and Vice-President.
A two-third vote of all the Senators present is required to ratify
a treaty or convict a person impeached.
ELECTION OF SENA T ORS.—The place at which United
States Senators shall be chosen must be determined by the
States. This place, usually the State Capitol, cannot be changed
by the Congress. But the Congress may ﬁx the time and manner
of electing Senators. It has done so. When a vacancy is about
to exist by reason of expiration of a senatorial term, the State
Legislature chosen next preceding ‘such vacancy must, on the
second Tuesday after its meeting, proceed to elect a Senator in
Congress. ‘
Each branch of the Legislature selects, by a majority of all
the viz/a wee votes cast, a candidate for Senator. The next day
‘after the above-named second Tuesday at 12 M., both- Houses
meet in joint assembly. If it is found they have both nominated
the same candidate, he shall be declared the Senator. If they
have not, then the two Houses shall sit in joint assembly, meet-
ing each day at 12 M., and casting at least one vote daily, till a
Senator is chosen by a majority of the votes of said joint
assembly, cast viz/a wore, a majority of both Houses being
present.
Vacancies by death or resignation are ﬁlled in the same
way by the.ﬁrst Legislature which meets, ﬁnding such vacancy.
The Governor of the State certiﬁes such election, under the
seal of the State and signed by his Secretary of State, to the
President of the Senate of the United States. Both the Senate and
House of Representatives are the ﬁnal judges of the qualiﬁcations
of their own members. In the ﬁrst Senate one-third of the mem-
bers were selected by lot for two years, another third for four, an-
other third_for six. This was to give effect to the clause in the
Constitution making one-third of the Senate elective every two
years. _
SENATE MA CHINER Y.-—The Senate employs for its com-
fortable working a Secretary of the Senate at a salary of $4,896 ;
THE‘ UNITED STATES. 193
a Chief Clerk, $3,000; a Librarian; and a corps of regular’
Clerks, Committee clerks, pages, pasters and folders, numbering" _
quite one hundred.
H 0 USE OF REPRESENT/1 T [ VES.——Known also as “ The
Lower House” and as the “ House.” It is equal and co—ordi-.1.
nate with the Senate as a branch of Congress, but has the sole‘
power to originate revenue bills, and to move in cases of im—.
peachment. Its bill of impeachment is like the bill of indict-
‘ment found by a grand jury, and is tried before the Senate sit-
ting as a court. Bills and resolutions'pass in the House, as
in the Senate, by a majority. Though the Senate and House
make the Congress, a custom has grown up of designating the
members of the House as M. C.’s. (Members of Congress) and
members of the Senate as Senators.
ELECT [ON OF M C.’S.—A member of the House must
be twenty-ﬁve years of age, a citizen of the United States for 5
seven years, and an inhabitant of the State in which he is chosen. '
He is elected for two years, and by the qualiﬁed electors in each
State. His salary like that of Senator is $5,000 per year.*
The Congress ﬁxes the number of members of the House
after each decennial census, as required by the Constitution.
Its act to this effect generally goes into operation on the third
of March of the third year after the census. Thus the act for‘
this purpose after the census of 1880 went into effect on and‘
after March 3, 188 3. The Congress enacted, Feb. 2 5,1882, that,
until another act after another census, the number of members
of the House should be 325. This number was then divided
among the States in proportion to their population. It was
* The salary of a Congressman was $8 per day up to 1856. From that time to
1866 it was $3,000 per year. It remained at this ﬁgure till act of March 3, 1873,
increased it to $7, 500 per year. This act increased the President’s salary from $25,-
000 to $50,000, and made a general increase of salaries among Department
oﬁ'icers. It was very unpopular and was followed by the act of Jan. 20, 1874, re-
ducing the salary of Congressmen to $5,000. It made material reductions in all
the raised salaries- The President’s salary remained at $50,000. In addition to
$5,000 per year members of Congress (Senators and M. C.’s) are entitled to mile-
age. This has always remained at forty cents a mile, on the principle, be it charit- _
ably supposed, that they all go to the capitol by stage—coach as of yore.
- 13 .
194
POLITICAL HISTORY.
found that each State was entitled to the following number of
members :
MEMBERS OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
As Apportz'oned (after Marc]; 3, 1883) Under Census qf 1880.

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [4
California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Nebraska . - - - - - - . . . - - . - . - . . - - - . - - - 3
Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I New jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Florida . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Illinois. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Indiana.................. 13 Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Iowa . . . . . . . . . .> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .
Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I
Maryland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO
Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
‘ Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
Quota for a Representative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 54,325
This act is called the apportionment act,* though the ﬁnal
work of apportionment is left to the States, each of which is
required to divide itself into as many Congressional districts of
contiguous territory, and containing as nearly as may be the
number of inhabitants ascertained to be a quota or ratio, as the
Congress has assigned to each- Thus by the above table New
York has thirty-four members of Congress between the years
1883 and 1893, under the census of 1880. Her Legislature must
*The ﬁrst apportionment was made by the Convention which framed the Consti-
tution. It'gave to N. H. 3; Mass. 8; R. I. I; Conn. 5; N. 6; N. 4; Pa. 8;
Del. 1 ; Md. 6; Va. 10; N. C. 5; S. C. 5; Ga. 3, or 65 in all. The ratio of represen-
tation was 30,000. After the census of 1790, the act of 1792 ﬁxed the ratio at 33,~
000; the act of 1803 left it at 33,000; the act of 1811 at 35,000; the act of 1822 at
40,000; the act of 1832 at 47,700; the act of 1842 at 70,680. Up to this time the
apportionment acts only ﬁxed a ratio of representation. The numberof members
was ascertained by dividing this ratio into the total population. But the act of 1852
ﬁxed instead the number of members of the House at 233, leaving the ratio to be
ascertained by dividing 233 into the population of 1850. This made the ratio
93,423. And so the ratio after 1860 was 127,381 ; after 1870, 131,425 ; and after
1880, as above. >


irv'ltlll Ill .Illlll
.-'-. .zaxa- ~

. . .MM
may
9. ow...
to
EGG
r...
... . . . . . .. i av!
. u .- n e v ... D‘ O .
ti.» .. I , . Ills
mm om wmewmwmzawé<
Q
..U aw...n,.... .2
mm.
C- .


196
‘196 ' POLITICAL HISTORY OF
divide the State into thirty-four Congressional districts, each of
which is to contain as nearly‘ as may ‘be 154,325 inhabitants.
To get at the electoral vote of each State you must add the two
Senators to the number of Representatives in the House. If a
Congressional election takes place in a'State before it has made
its apportionment, and ‘said State shall be entitled to one or more
'members'of Congress than it had under the previous apportion-
ment, the additional member or members may, for the time
being, be elected on the general State ticket as “ Members of
Congress at Large.”
The States formerly voted for Congressmen at their annual
State elections, no matter when they came off. Now, under an
act of Congress ‘(March 3, 1875) prescribing a‘ “ uniform time
for holding Congressional elections,” they are all required to
hold them on the “ Tuesday next after the ﬁrst Monday in No-
vember,” of every second year, and all will do so as soon as they
can amend their Constitutions to that effect. ,
ORGANIZA T [ON OF THE HOUSE—The chief ofﬁcer
of the House is called the Speaker. He is elected by the mem-
bers, at the beginning of‘ each Congress. His election is a
necessary part of organization. His compensation is $8,000,
because his duties are more arduous than those of the average
member, and his knowledge of parliamentary law and usages
supposed to be greater. He may become President, for should
there be no President, nor Vice-President, nor President of the
Senate pro lam, the Speaker of the House becomes Acting Pres-
ident. . ‘ '
The most important ofﬁcer of the House, after the Speaker, is
the Clerk of the House, salary $4,500. Indeed, it would ‘not be
amiss to call him the most important ofﬁcer of the House, for
upon him devolves the duty of preparing a list of the members
elected to each Congress, and only the members on this list are
entitled to participate 'in'the work of organization. . If names are
wrongfullyomitted, the matter must be settled by regular hearing
before the House, or a Committee on Elections, under the rule
that each House is the judge of the qualiﬁcation of its- own
members. - i - '
THE UNITED STATES. _ 197
TERRITORIAL DELEGA T ES.——Each organized Territory
is entitled to a representative in Congress (two, if the population
warrants, though generally Territories become States by that
time), elected by the qualiﬁed electors thereof, the same as
Members of Congress. This Territorial representative is called
a Delegate. He is entitled to join in debate but cannot vote.
His pay is $5,000 per year and mileage. .
HOUSE MA CHINER Y.—-—The House machinery is more
elaborate than that of the Senate. The Clerk of the House has
a large corps of assistants, as has the Sergeant-at-Arms. The
reading clerks, committee clerks, post-ofﬁce clerks, library em-
ployés, door-keepers, messengers, pasters and folders, etc., num-
ber from 250 to 300.
MAKING ‘LA WS.—-Both Houses rely largely on their Com-
inittees to prepare bills and resolutions, before they are presented
for discussion and ﬁnal passage.‘ These Committees are very
numerous, and are organized presumably with reference to their
ﬁtness for the subjects referred to them. After the Speaker of
the House is elected, his ﬁrst important business is to appoint
the Standing Committees of the House. The President of the
Senate 'does the same for the Senate, at the opening of each new
Congress. When a bill is‘ introduced, it is read for the informa—
tion of the members. If it is not opposed or rejected, it is said
to be passed to a second reading, which may be the next or some
subsequent day. On that second reading the question comes up
shall it be committed to one of the above Standing Committees,
the subject of the bill suggesting the proper Committee. Some-
times the nature of the bill is such as toirequire its reference to
a special or select Committee. When bills of great moment are
under discussion, the House resolves itself into a Committee of
the Whole, on account of the greater freedom of debate. then
allowed. After the Committee to which a bill has been referred
are done deliberating on it, it is reported back to the House
either adversely or favorably, and with or without amendments.
Then the question is on its engrossment (copying in a fair hand)
for’ third _reading. After being engrossed (if it has been so
ordered), it is read ‘a third time and the question is on its pas‘.
198 POLITICAL HISTORY.
sage. If passed, it is signed by the presiding ofﬁcer and sent to
the other House, where it goes through the same routine.
- Sometimes amendments are added on its passage. If so, it is
sent back to the House where it originated. If these are agreed
to, it is repassed there. If not, and the bill is important, the dis-
agreement between the two Houses is settled, if possible, in what
is called a. Committee of Conference; that is, a Committee com—
posed of members from both Houses. This Committee reports
to both Houses the results of its deliberations, and if in the
shape of a bill, it is again on its ﬁnal passage in both Houses as
before. When passed by both Houses, it is sent to the Presi-
dent. ,If he approves it, he signs it, and then it is law.’ If he
does not approve it, he sends it back to the House in which it
originated, with his veto message, where the question is, “ Shall
it pass notwithstanding the President’s veto?” Unless it is sus-
tained by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses it cannot become
a law over the veto. If so sustained it becomes law in spite of
the veto. The President has ten days in which to consider a
bill before he signs or vetoes it. Many bills are crowded on the
President within ten days of the adjournment of Congress.
Those he favors he returns with his approval in time, ‘and so
with those he does not favor, if he wishes .his reasons for a
veto to become public. But sometimes he does not return the
bill at all in time for adjournment, and thus kills it. This is
called the “ pocket veto,” the bill being in the President’s pocket,
as it were. It is not regarded as a very manly way of exercising
the veto power, but must be excused sometimes to rush of busi-
‘ ness during the closing days of a session. Resolutions and
joint Resolutions follow the routine of Bills.
CONGRESSIONAL LIBRARY—An act of April 24, 1800,
appropriated $ 5,000 to buy necessary books for Members of the
Congress. Act of jan. 26, 1802, organized The Library of
Congress, located it in a room previously Occupied by the
House of Representatives, created the ofﬁce of Librarian, made
him appointive by the President, and limited the use of booksto
Members of Congress and the Departments. Up to 1814 there
were only 3,000 volumes in the library. It was burned Aug. 2 5 ,


I‘ \I\.\
,I it
I
i
nm
b]!
a
l l.“
III‘IlIIli
, .
i; - I
I‘ Ill _ Jig ‘it lii't'i'll
I i ' 'l \‘1 1, i.»
I Pp I ‘ti; I
-' ' ‘I. i V
_ I‘ I . I ‘I
i ./ ‘iii i I,"


Si
,.
it:
the“


j, (II ‘ I I - , ’ ‘ '
I ,- v . . a n‘ , ' - .
C II: . ‘I i ‘I -; I'; , l
I , ; q I m I ' :I '
j I 4 ,I I ~_ I- r .I
‘ I I ,. ll ,- I" ‘y '
, , ~. , - - . h
r t! . I I I ‘
I f .
I .
.‘l ‘I. K I . I
a . I’ - ~\. ' ' "II I. ‘I
I‘ " a‘: ‘1;, "' ‘ I ,l‘ I!‘ l‘I ‘(l-A‘: ' I
,, q I ~I. ~_'-~.,'
- I _ . ' \
\ I ' I I. 4 -‘
I‘ ' 1" ' I " _.‘ ‘ I '
I .u __ ll, I , ' .9 'l I
I . I; ,.
‘I 'H j I‘ t 1' ‘
l


“ill;


III-rip; I
ii iii‘ I "I’ "
L
.Ii 11
I i
. I
.I‘ ll r\\ ‘it I
I
II


Iii!


If,’ t
Iii/ill"


llll
Q ''/‘I“
l
t} I
ii‘ “L “
II
I
O


I
v. I
' i W
l" 'I' i
In“; ‘ Ii'v"
/’\ \Q/a
m ‘ " ‘if ‘
.44.’
Illlllll
IIIW


_
*3.

.
l 4 ' ' -'
@ r-Wtﬂmw ° '
‘I, s- I I *e — ,L Q .
\ ‘ < _ _afi ‘i- I . _ ‘77 ._ .. \ ’ ‘a \' E, '~‘-:‘_ " - l.‘ _ ~ ~ ‘
\ < . \S.‘ "a" 17''‘ __'1 "u <' -_‘ I _ .
. r ' , I ' I - ‘I T“
r I, e , ._1
I I
.
v


i ‘ 'Illr-I"
Lita .


_ , . ,f'ﬁ‘l
\ » \J T ..-‘
Q’eoereilge I
‘I
W J
i
I
. _ , hm"
_ n


\


. j ' n;
I -- ‘ l '
I I i mil.‘ __.~ ._ .
@— ' : i
Bronze Door in the National Capitol Commemorating the;


Life of George Washington.

i
it "
11C *5 .V
‘r f


L. ll
Events of the
199
s- 200~ POLITICAL HISTORY OF
1: 1814; with the capitol, by the British. In September, 1814, jefl
ferson offered his library of 6,700 volumes, as the nucleus of a
new library of Congress, at cost. It was accepted, and the sum
- of $23,950 paid for it. In 1818 the annual appropriation to the
Library was raised to $2,000 a year, and in 1824 to $5,000 a
1year. This year it was moved to the central capitol. In 1851
" ‘it had 55,000 volumes, and again met with a loss by ﬁrev of
35,000 volumes. Starting anew, Congress rebuilt a ﬁre-proof
hall for $75,000, and appropriated $75,000 to buy books. By
1860 it contained 75,000 volumes, on an annual appropriation of
$7,000. This was increased to $10,000 in 1861. In 1866 it re-
ceived the 40,000 volumes of the Smithsonian Institute. In
1867 the Force library was purchased at a cost of $100,000. It
contained 60,000 books and articles. '
The Law Department of the Library was constituted by act
of july 14, 1832., Under an annual appropriation of $2,000 a
year it has grown from 2,011 volumes to 3 5,000.
By act of july 8, 1870, the granting of copyrights was centered
in the ofﬁce of the Librarian of Congress, where two copies of
each publication entered for copyright must be deposited. This
: ‘i has brought an annual addition of 25,000 books, maps, and other
articles, in duplicate. In‘ january, 1880, the library contained
365,000 volumes and 120,000 pamphlets, and in 1883, 513,441
volumes and 165,000 pamphlets. The catalogue alone ﬁlls four
. royal octavo volumes. Measures are now being taken to erect
a new building, which is much needed, the capacity of the
present one being wholly inadequate. Expenditure for the
Library is under control of a joint committee of both Houses
of Congress. The same committee have control of the Botanical
Garden, which supplies plants, seeds and ﬂowers to Members of
Congress for public distribution and personal use.
PUBLIC PRINTING OFF] CE.--Until 1860 the govern-
ment hired men to do its printing, and each House employed a
. printer. The expense got to be so enormous that Congress
" authorized a Government Printing Office, and appropriated
$150,000 to start it. It was placed under the management of a
Superintendent of ‘Public Printing, or the Public Printer, whose
THE UNITED STATES. ‘ 201
salary is $3,600. This ofﬁcer is selected by Congress. He has '
power to purchase all necessary material and employ ample
help. He must report to Congress each. session the work done,
the expense incurred, the number of hands employed, the full
and exact condition of the establishment. The ofﬁce is now the
largest and best appointed in the world. It prints and binds all
public books and papers, except where otherwise ordered. The
number of these is simply enormous, and many of them of very
little use. The force employed consists of six clerks, and some
1,500 hands. The cost of work done in the ofﬁce must not ex-
ceed that of private printing ofﬁces in Washington.
THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT.
The language of the Constitution is, Art. II. Sec. I : “ The
. executive power shall be vested in a President of the United
States of America. He shall hold his ofﬁce during the term of
four years, and, together with the Vice-President, chosen for the
same term, be elected as follows.” '
Before showing how he is elected let it be said that he is
sometimes called “ The Executive,” and “ The Chief Magistrate
of the Nation.” The Congress (Legislative Branch) legislates,
that is, makes the laws; the President (Executive Branch) exe-
cutes or enforces the "laws; the Supreme, Circuit and District
Courts (judicial Branch) adjudge, expound, interpret, pronounce,
and, with the civic machinery at their command, also execute
the laws.
PRESIDENT-MAKING—The people do not vote directly
for the President and Vice-President but for Presidential electors,
whose number in each State is equal to the number of the
representatives (Senators and M. C.’s) in the Congress from that
State.* The President must be thirty-ﬁve years of age and a
native of the United States. At ﬁrst the political parties desig~
* At ﬁrst the Legislatures of the respective States generally made choice of the
electors. 'This was gradually abandoned, and by 1824 most of the States used the
popular vote. In 1828 the popular vote of the States became an element of com‘-
putation. South Carolina retained the method of electing electors by her Legisla-
ture till 1868. This word elector is misleading. Any qualiﬁed voter is an elector.
But it is in the Constitution and besides has the sanction of long custom.
202 ' POLITICAL HISTORY. '
nated their candidates for President in Congressional Caucus.
This method began to give way to the modern system of Na-
tional Nominating Conventions with- a platform of principles
about 1832-36. The ﬁrst four Presidential elections were con-
ducted under Art. 11., Sec. 1, Clause 3, of the Constitution, which
did not require a separate nomination for Vice-President, but
that each elector should vote for two persons, not from the same
State, the one having the highest number of votes to be Presi-
dent, the one having the next highest to be Vice-President. In
the election of 1800, jefferson and Burr had each 73 votes, and
the contest had to be settled in the House. .At the previous
election of I 796, john Adams, Federal, had .71 votes, Thomas
jefferson, Republican, 68 votes. Here was a‘ President of one
party, and a Vice-President of another. It was evident that
the clause was defective, and it was amended in 1804 by the
adoption of the 12th Amendment.
PRESZDEN T [AL ELECTORS.—“ Each State shall appoint,
in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number
of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Repre-
sentatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress;
but no Senator, or Representative, or person holding an office
of trust or proﬁt under the United States shall be appointed an
elector,” Cons. Art. 11., Sec. I, Clause 2.
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE—Under the above article,’
and the apportionment in accordance with the Census of 1880, the
Electoral Colleges of the respective States ‘contain electors, as
follows:
Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 Massachusetts..................... 14
California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Connecticut....................... 6 Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Delaware......................... 3 Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16
Florida- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 Nebraska......................... 5
Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22 New Hampshire................... 4
Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 New jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9
Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. 36
Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 North Carolina...........,,,,,_,,_ 11
Kentucky.. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' 8 Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Maine.......~.........'. 6 Pennsylvania . . . . H... . . . . . . . . . . .. 30'

'MGIIA NHEIHIHON iGISflOH HIIHM

204 - ‘ POLITICAL HISTORY OF
wRhodeIsland . . . . . . ....,,. . . . , , .. 4|Vermont....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Virginia.. . .~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12_ West Virginia. .‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Texas . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._I_I
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .401
Requiring, as between two candidates, 201 to elect.
CHOOSTNG OF ELECT ORE—Electors of President and
Vice-President are chosen in each State on the Tuesday next
after the ﬁrst Monday in November, in every fourth year suc-
ceeding every election of a President or Vice-President. This
is the Presidential election. .
The number of electors must equal the whole number of
Representatives and Senators to which the several States are by
law entitled at the time when the President and Vice-President
to be chosen come into ofﬁce. But where no apportionment of
Representatives has been made after a Census, at the time of
choosing electors, the number of electors must be according
to the then existing apportionment of Senators and Representa-
tives. _
Each State may by law provide for ﬁlling any vacancies in
its electoral college,‘ when such college meets to give its elec-.
toral vote. . _
When any State has held an election for electors and has
failed to make a choice on the day ﬁxed by law, electors may be
appointed on a subsequent day in such manner as the Legislature
may prescribe. I i
ELECTORAL C OLLEGE—Electors for each State meet
and give their votes the ﬁrst Wednesday in December in the
year in which they are chosen, at such place in each State as its‘
Legislature directs. - _ .
On the day of meeting, or before, the Governor of each State
delivers to the electors three certiﬁed lists of the names of _
electors of such State. A. , ,
The electors vote for President and Vice-President, as the
Constitution directs in Art. XII. of the Amendments. They then
make and sign three certiﬁcates of the votes given by them, each
of which contains two distinct lists, one of the votes for Presi-.
dent, the other of votes for'V-ice-President, and ‘annex to each
~—.l....-.-._ . . ¢._Y,,__.__.. H‘. _. _.~ . ,4
THE UNITED STATES. 205
of the certiﬁcates one of the lists of electors furnished them by l
the Governor. They seal these certiﬁcates, and certify on each
that it contains the lists of all the votes of such State for Presi-
dent and Vice-President. One of them must be placed in the
hands of a person appointed by them, to be delivered by him to
the President of the Senate, in Washington, before the ﬁrst
Wednesday of the ensuing january. The second they forward
by mail to the President of the Senate. The third they forth-
with deliver to the' judge of the district in which the electors
assemble. -
If the certiﬁcates of any State have not arrived in Washington
by the ﬁrst Wednesday in january, the Secretary of State sends
a messenger for the list deposited with the district judge.
Congressshall be in session on the second Wednesday in
February after'each meeting of electors, and the certiﬁcates, or -
as many as have been received, shall be opened, the votes
counted, and the persons to ﬁll the ofﬁces of President and Vice-
President ascertained and declared agreeably to the Constitu—
tion. See Art. XIII, Amendments. _
If there is no President of the Senate at Washington when
the person to whom the certiﬁcates have been entrusted arrives,
he deposits them with the Secretary of State, to be turned over
to the President of the Senate as soon as may be.
The four years term of President and Vice-President begins on
the fourth of March next succeeding the day on which the votes
of the electors have been given. As we have seen, this is always
an odd year, and the election is always on an even year.
PRESIDENT ’S DU T IES.-—-He is sworn into ofﬁce, together
with the Vice-President, on March 4th after his election, and
usually delivers an inaugural address foreshadowing his policy.
He communicates annually with the Congress by means of a
formal, written message. Before jefferson’s time the Presidents
delivered their annual messages in person. jefferson established
the custom of communicating by written messages, as in better
accord with Republican simplicity. The President also com-
municates with Congress by message at any time during the
session if he has anything important to say.
206 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
He received, up to 1873, $25,000 salary; since then his salary
has been $50,000, with the use of the White House and its fur-
niture. He is not allowed to receive any other emolument, not
even a gift, and his salary cannot be raised or lowered during his
term of ofﬁce. He is Commander-in-Chief of the Army and
Navy, may grant pardons except in cases of impeachment, call
extra sessions of Congress, and change the meeting-place of
Congress in time of danger or great emergency. '
He has, jointly with the Senate, the treaty-making power and-
the appointing power. He may be impeached and removed
from ofﬁce. In case of death, absence or disability the Vice-
President becomes President. Around him and in the Execu-
tive ofﬁce proper are his Private Secretary, Assistant Secretary,
and a corps of stenographers and clerks, doorkeepers, watch-
. men and ushers.
But the President’s chief body of assistants and advisers is
made up of the members of his Cabinet.
PRESIDENTS CABINET—Cabinet means a small room
in which select or secret councils are held by an executive or
chief ofﬁcer of state. The President’s Cabinet is not a creation
of law but of custom. The law merely creates the departments
or bureaus and authorizes for each a chief, who is appointed by
the President, by and with the consent of the Senate. These
departments being important, and a direct means by which the
President executes the laws, their heads or chiefs are supposed
_to act in concert with the President. To maintain this concert
they must be frequently called into council or cabinet meeting.
The chiefs of departments who are now recognized as ofﬁcers
of the Cabinet are the Secretary of State, Secretary of War,
Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of Navy, Secretary of Interior,
Attorney-General, and Postmaster-General, seven in all. Of the
function of each of these, as heads of their respective depart-
ments, we shall speak in the proper place. We now speak of
them only as members of the Cabinet, or President’s ‘advisers.
Their pay, not as Cabinet members, but as heads of their
departments, is $8,000 a year. As ex oﬁicz'o members of the
Cabinet they are called into “ Cabinet meeting” by the Presi-.
THE UNITED STATES. 207
dent whenever he needs their advice in shaping a policy, or in-
formation from them respecting the running of their depart-
ments, though this latter is usually laid before the Congress
and country in the annual reports of the heads of depart-
ments. Whenevera head of department, who ranks as a Cabinet
officer, cannot agree with the President in his policy, and is
tenacious of his views, he resigns on the principle that he is no
' longer a proper adviser. The Senate rarely fails to conﬁrm the
nominations of the President to those department places which
rank as Cabinet ofﬁces, for the reason that he is entitled to the
privilege of surrounding himself with advisers who are in har-
mony with his executive views.
From what we have now learned of the Cabinet, it will be
understood that it has been a growth. Under Washington’s
administration there were but three department ofﬁcers who
ranked as Cabinet members, viz.: Secretary of State, Secretary
of Treasury and Secretary of War. Naval affairs were then
under the control of the Secretary of War. The separate Navy
Department was not organized till April 30, 1798, Adams’ ad-
ministration, when the Cabinet was augmented by the Secretary
of Navy. The Postmaster-General was a subordinate of the
Treasury Department till 1829. Though the ofﬁce of Attorney-
General was created-by act of September 24, I789, he did not
rank as a full Cabinet ofﬁcer till 1841-45, Tyler’s administration.
The Department of Interior was created March 3, 1849, last day
of Polk’s administration, and the Secretary of the Interior be-
came a Cabinet ofﬁcer. A list of the Cabinet ofﬁcers will be
found under their respective department heads.
VICE-PRESIDENT—The Constitution says all executive
power shall be in the President. But when it Comes to speaking
of his qualiﬁcation and election, it mentions a Vice-President.
“ No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President
shall be eligible to the ofﬁce of Vice-President.” 12th Amend-
ment, clause 3. The Vice-President is not endowed with much
power. His salary is $8,000. He is presiding ofﬁcer of the
Senate, but without a vote, except in case of a tie. In all else
he is like an alternate, merely an ofﬁcial provision against the’
208' ’ ‘POLITICAL HIsToRv. '
possibility of being without a President. The Vice-President be-
comes President in case of the death, resignation, impeachment,
or disability of the latter. This has happened four times in the
history of our'governnient, when Harrison and Taylor died and
Lincoln and Garﬁeld were assassinated.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
CREA T [ VE A C T S.—-There is no mention in the Constitution
of this department nor any other belonging to the Executive
branch of the government. They are all creations of Congress,‘
which was endowed with power to pass all laws necessary to
give effect to the Constitution. At the starting of the govern-
ment, foreign relations were intricate and momentous. There-
fore the act of july 27, 1789 (Ist Congress, extra session),
created a Department of Foreign Affairs, whose Secretary should
attend to correspondence and negotiations with foreign ministers,
and to such other foreign affairs as the President might order
and direct. By act of September I 5, I 789 (same session), the
name of this department was changed to Department of State,
and the chief to Secretary of State, and he was, in addition to
the above duties, charged with the receipt and publication of the
laws of Congress, made custodian of the great Seal, and author-
ized to use it on civil commissions. In 18 5 3 the ofﬁce of Assist-
ant Secretary of State was created.
NATURE AND DUTIES—The Department of State usu-
ally heads the list of the Executive Departments. The Secretary
of State is regarded as the nearest ofﬁcer to the President, and
is usually selected on account of the great conﬁdence reposed in
him as a lawyer, diplomatist and safe political adviser. He is
sometimes called ‘the President’s Premier, or Prime Minister,
after the English fashion, because he ranks as ﬁrst of his coun-
sellors. In monarchies the class of ofﬁcers we call Secretaries
are called Ministers.
The Secretary of State conducts all correspondence with and
issues all instructions to United States consuls and ministers;
negotiates with foreign ministers and representatives on all mat-
ters they submit, under the. direction of the President; ﬁxes the
'INHNLHVdHG HVM.QNV AAVN‘HLVLS
\
will“
I I V _' 1 l " a l
__ ‘l I!‘ I i j 1 l 5| :Egv
“1 u l ' ‘1
II M ‘ il ‘ I" \ y 7:11‘ t‘
"I l “I "' I "' Lila?
‘I i I l: W" l i‘ I‘ it‘ A‘ i ‘1 "I, ‘ a ‘12;? i'l'l'
l Ill ll’ ; 'hWWp
‘,i' ‘ I I w
. r _ l , , I I pl‘! ‘
, iju ' I”), ﬁll-‘21.’?
! ' 'dW l
l,
l
l‘ l I’ (l )(l Mai‘: ‘lull
‘1 I) llllli
! ;
\ I’
\\~ 1 ‘
\’ I
.I 6.‘
‘\u ‘(I
l/\ I
“ i: z
‘ i
{ll 1" Mn" -‘ '
\ |
|
" i HIM‘ i
. litt H;
lllujl 1. \
l H
l
l
' i if».
i ' Wig“.
will.‘ \
l
I r ‘iii
1‘ l
m <
ll " ,1 AI‘
" i‘ 'l H
‘- ‘:l, ll‘ lj’il
l,
“(I l.‘ I‘.
:‘lliI '1"
. l‘ l J“.
all" Y: ‘ ; VI’?!
ll \ij. I
‘ "1' m 2
" ' lhr ' "
I \ _" v E ‘il‘ t,‘
) ' it . N‘ - ' 2
‘J l lA l
/ l‘l ' 1| ll l I‘
1 l‘ j I‘ I I
l l " ‘inﬁll
l i: 1'‘
l I I
Y t it ' ‘l
I A 1 z (
l H '
y l I‘ ‘ I 1
l l ‘ , "I
| .
I i
. |= {q .l .‘ . , W‘
I ll
[34,‘;
11“ l l
"M ' t I
ll‘i' ! l I j’;
.i. 'l l I
Ir, I
l
i
ii|
ii‘!
1 ‘i
v
lilm I
iiM'mii; l»!
ii! .I/ I
M .

i
it 2:34.11 '( ; El! l
l r =11» Min ill! .l
14 209
1!.
210 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
great seal to all executive commissions; receives and preserves
the originals of all bills, orders and resolutions of House or
Senate; promulgates and publishes the laws, amendments to the
Constitution, and all consular and diplomatic information; lays
before Congress annually a report of commercial systems
among nations, treaties, diplomacy and all information touching
our relations with foreign governments; grants passports. His
is indeed an arduous and responsible ofﬁce. As a cabinet ofﬁcer
the President relies on him more than on any other, because of
the delicacy, often intricacy, of the subjects which come under
his consideration. Foreign relations are seldom free from
serious complications, and negligence or blunder might at any
moment lead to war. ‘
vZWACHINER Y.—The machinery for working this important
department is ample and intricate. It consists of a number of
bureaus, branches and divisions, each of which is designed
to attend to one of the many duties of the department.
Thus there is a Diplomatic Bureau, Consular Bureau, Bureau
of Indexes and Archives, Bureau of Accounts, Librarian,
Division of Statistics, Bureau of Law, Division of Translations,
Division of Pardons, Passport Division.
DIPLOMA T f C SER VICE—The Diplomatic Bureau of the
Department of State is the centre of the Diplomatic Service of
the United States. This service embraces Envoys Extraordinary
and Ministers Plenipotentiary. These high-sounding titles
designate our most important ministers to foreign countries.
They, like all our foreign ministers of whatever grade, are ap-'
pointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate. They do not, however, represent the President but,
the entire government. It is to be regretted that a service dedi-
cated to diplomacy, which is supposably exact and exacting,
should be so loose in its use of terms. The word Embassador
has with us none but the most general meaning. It might very
. properly include all that is meant by the above lengthy titles.
The persons sent abroad to represent the government and who
are called Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary
are not only authorized to reside in the country they go to, but
THE UNITED sTATEs. 211
are fully commissioned to act for our government there. They
are offices of great dignity and responsibility, and are usually
ﬁlled with men of prudence and knowledge of foreign affairs.
By the Law of Nations Embassadors, Envoys, Ministers and
duly accredited representatives of any kind are exempt from
arrest, imprisonment and prosecution. Violation of the person,
property or rights of an Embassador in any civilized country
would be a cause for war on the part of the country offended.
We have now sixteen Embassadors abroad who rank as
Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary, viz. : one
each to France, Germany, Great Britain and Russia, at a salary
of $17,500 each. One each to Austro—Hungary, Brazil, China,
Italy, japan, Mexico and Spain, at a salary of $12,000 each. One
each to Central American States, Chili and Peru, at a salary of
$10,000 each. One to Turkey, at a salary of $7,500. One to
Corea, at a salary of $5,000. They are accredited to the Sover-
eigns of the countries to which they are sent.
MINISTERS RESIDENT—These like the former reside
abroad. By this word “reside” is not meant permanent resi-
dence, but only until their commissions expire. They do not go
on a special mission, to return when it is ended. The Resident
Ministers are instructed and clothed with authority, the same as
those of a higher grade, but the countries to which they are
sent being of less importance, and their salaries smaller, they do
not rank so high. They are one each to Argentine Republic,
Belgium, United States of Colombia, Hawaiian Islands, Nether-
lands, Sweden and Norway, and Venezuela, salary $7,500; and
one each to Bolivia, Hayti, Denmark, Liberia, Persia, Portugal
and Switzerland (who are also Consuls-General), salary $5,000.
The Minister Resident to Greece, salary $6,500, also represents
the country in Roumania and Servia.
CHARGE D’AFFA[RES.-—These are ofﬁcers like Ministers
Resident, though not accredited to sovereigns, but to ministers
of foreign affairs. Their authority is full, ‘but they go to
countries without intricate diplomacy. One is sent to Paraguay
and Uruguay, salary $5,000.
SECRETARIES OF LEG/1 T I ON—These are usually com-
212 ‘ POLITICAL HISTORY OF
missioned attendants of the more important ministers and act as
their secretaries and interpreters. In the absence of their prin-
cipal they supply his place, and sometimes they are the only
American representative in a foreign country, as, till lately, the
Secretary of Legation and Interpreter at Pekin, salary $5,000.
There are other Secretaries of Legation, as follows: One at
Constantinople, salary $ 3, 500, and one Interpreter, salary $3,000 ;'
two at Paris, salaries $2,62 5 and $2,000; two at Berlin, salaries
$2,625 and $2,000; two at London, salaries $2,625 and $2,000;
one at St. Petersburg, salary $2,62 5 ; one Secretary of Legation
and one Interpreter at Yedo, japan, salary $2,500 each; one each
at Vienna and Rome, salary $3,500; one each at Rio de Janeiro
and Mexico, salary $1,800; and one at Madrid, salary $3,000.
CUNSULAR SERVICE—The second Bureau in the State
Department is the Consular Bureau. It is a large and
important Bureau, and through its consuls the government
ﬁnds a representation in every important city and country
in the world. Like Ministers, Envoys and Secretaries of
Legation, they are appointed by the President and Senate.
They hear all complaints of American captains, masters, crews
and passengers, and adjudicate their cases; hear protests of
American merchants, also of foreigners respecting American
citizens; certify to the correctness of all invoices of goods
shipped to this country; gather commercial information of the
country and send it to the Consular Bureau; take charge of
deceased Americans, their effects and estates, and properly dis-
pose of the same. They have no representative or diplomatic
status, but are nevertheless protected under the Law of Nations,
the raised ﬂag of the country being their safeguard. They may
determine all matter of wages for seamen on board American
ships, receive ships’ papers and see that they are correct, provide
for sick or destitute seamen and send them home, dismiss crews
if mutinou's or disobedient, settle questions of wreck and salvage,
assist in defence of American criminals on trial in their jurisdic-
tion; and in some countries aid in adjudicating civil disputes.
There is a full code of laws and instructions for their government.
They are of three grades. No. I embraces Consuls-General
THE UNITED STATES. 213
and Consuls with ﬁxed salaries, who are not allowed to transact
any other business._ No. 2 includes those with ﬁxed salaries
(lower than the ﬁrst), who are allowed to transact other business.
No. 3 embraces all who are paid by fees, and allowed to transact
other business. Some of the third-class ﬁnd a large proﬁt from
fees, some ﬁnd nearly nothing. Besides those in these classes
there are Commercial Agents and Consular Clerks with similar
duties and powers. It will be readily seen the Consular Service
embraces many hundred persons. They are appointed usually
at the instance of Senators and Representatives, but many
through the influence of commercial men, and for their knowl-
edge of foreign languages and business usages.
SECRETARIES OF STATE.
Name. Appointed.
Thomas Jefferson, Va'. . . .Sept. 26, 1789
Edmund Randolph, Va. .Jan. 2, 1794
Name. Appointed.
John C. Calhoun, S. C. . . .Mar. 6, 1844
Timothy Pickering, Pa. . .Dec. 10, 1795 James Buchanan, Pa. . . ...Mar. 6, 1845
John Marshall, Va . . . . . . .May 13, 1800 John M. Clayton, DEl. . . .Mar. 7, 1849
James Madison, Va . . . . . . .Mar. 5, 1801 Daniel Webster, Mass. . . .July 22, 1850
Robert Smith, Md.. . . . . ..Mar. 6, 1809 Edward Everett, Mass... ..Nov. 6, 1852
James Monroe, Va... . . . . .April 2, 181 1 William L. Marcy, N. Y. .Mar. 7, 1853
John Quincy Adams, Mass.Mar. 5, 1817 Lewis Cass, Mich . . . . . . . .Mar. 6, 1857
Henry Clay, Ky . . . . . . . ..Mar. 7, 1825 Jeremiah Black, Pa. . . .Dec. 17, 1860
Martin Van Buren, N. Y..Mar. 6, 1829 William H. Seward, N. Y.Mar. 5, 1861
Edward Livingston, La. . .May 24, 1831
E. W. \Vashburne, Ill. . . .Mar. 5, 1869
Louis McLane, Del . . . . . .May 29, 1833
Hamilton Fish, N. Y.. . . .Mar. 11, 1869
John Nelson, Md . . . . ...Feb. 29, 1844.
John Forsyth, Ga. . . . . . . .June 27, 1834
Daniel Webster, Mass. . . .Mar. 5, 1841
Hugh S. Legaré, S. C. . . .May 9, 1843
Abel P. Upshur, Va . . . . ..July 24, 1843

William M. Evarts, N. Y.Mar. 12, 1877
James G. Blaine, Me... . . . Mar. 5, 1881
F. T. Frelinghuysen, N. J..Dec. 12, 1881
Thomas F. Bayard, Del....Mar. 6, 1885
TREASURY DEPARTMENT.
CREATIVE AC T S.—-The Treasury of the Continental Con-
gress was conducted under the auspices of a Committee of Con;
gress. Under the Confederation the ofﬁce of “ Secretary of the
Treasury” was created by act of Feb. II, 1779. By act of June
30, 1779, it was resolved into a Board of Commissioners. By
act of Feb. 7, 1781, the Board of Commissioners gave way to a
Superintendent of Finance, who was given (Sept. 11, 1781) the
assistance of a Comptroller, Register, Treasurer and Auditors.
By act of May 28, 1784, the old Board of Commissioners was
reinvested with control. This was very changeable legislation
214 POLITICAL HISTORY.
respecting an ofﬁce so important as that of the Treasury, but it
was characteristic of the Confederation.
During the ﬁrst session of Congress, Sept. 2, I 789, our present
Treasury Department was established with a Secretary of the
Treasury, Comptroller, Auditor, Treasurer, Register and Assistant
Secretary. Around this nucleus has been built'by repeated acts
of Congress the present stupendous fabric, whose officials are
more numerous than those of any other department, whose re-
sponsibilities are greater, whose existence is inseparable from
that of the government, whose transactions amount to hundreds
of millions of dollars a year. -
POWERS AND DU T [ES—All accounts of the United
States are settled in the Treasury Department, and there all
moneys due are received, and owing, paid.
The transactions of this department date from july 1 of each
year. This is called the Fiscal (money) year. No ofﬁcer or
clerk in this department is permittedv to accept any compensa-
tion over and above his salary for transacting any business in
the department, nor can any employé trade in the funds of or
debts of the United States.
The chief ofﬁcer is the Secretary of the Treasury, salary
$8,000. He is a member of the Cabinet, and is appointed, like
all department ofﬁcers, by the President, by and with the con-
sent of the Senate. He has two Assistant Secretaries at a salary
of $4,500 each. The Secretary must manage the collectiori of
all revenue and lay plans for supporting ‘the public credit; order
and keep all public accounts; grant warrants for moneys appro-
priated by Congress; audit accounts of receipts and disburse-
ments; collect all commercial statistics ; report annually to Con-
gress, or whenever called upon, his methods of management,
results and recommendations.
For his assistance in the discharge of these multifarious and
responsible duties he has a corps of ofﬁcers, clerks and assistants
which number over 3,000. These are all at work in the follow-
ing subdepartments, bureaus or divisions:
FIRST ASSISTANT—This ofﬁcer supervises all the work
relating to Appointments; Public Moneys; Revenue Marine;

jam Czzod wagon 4.83.5: <<em23m89 D. O.
216 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
Stationery, Printing and Blanks; Loans and Currency; Bureau
of Engraving and Printing; Bureau of the Mint.
SECOND ASSISTANT supervisesall the work belonging
to the Division of Customs; Special Agents; Navigation; In-
ternal Revenue; Appropriations, Warrants'and Estimates; Super-
vising Architect; Marine Hospital Supervision; Bureau of
Statistics; Inspector-General of Steam-vessels.
CHIEF CLERK’S OFFICE has supervision of all the
Treasury buildings, their furniture, repairs, mails, horses, wagons,
working property. ,
APPOIN T MENTS—This division supervises all appoint-
ments and removals in the department, the Customs Service, In-
ternal Revenue, and other branches of the Treasury Department;
prepares the Treasury Register (Blue Book); and attends to
matters of estimates, pay—rolls, etc. '
WARRAN T S.—The ‘ Division of Warrants, Estimates and
Appropriations issues Warrants for the payment of Public
Moneys; keeps Sinking Fund, Public Debt and Paciﬁc R. R.
accounts; account of Appropriations and Estimates therefor;
states annual expenditures and monthly statement of debt;
keeps Financial Statistics.
PUBLIC MONEYS—This division supervises the sub-
Treasuries and National Banks, and enforces the laws and regu—
lations respecting them.
C US T OMS—The Division of Customs hears and determines
all questions of tariff laws and regulations arising in the Customs
Districts or Consular service. The Commissioner of Customs
makes ﬁnal revision of the accounts of Customs ofﬁcers from all
the ports of the country.
INTERNAL REVENUE—This division, uniting with it
that of Navigation, has charge of all questions arising in the
Marine service and relating to, or growing out of, the collection
of Internal Revenue. The actual work of collection belongs to
the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
LOANS AND CURRENCY is a division which supervises
the National loans, the redemption of bonds; preparations for
printing bonds; delivery and redemption of bonds and their can~
THE UNITED STATES. 21 7
cellation and destruction. In its records a U. S. bond can be
traced from the paper—mill to the furnace.
REVENUE MARINE SER V165 is‘ an adjunct of the Cus-
toms service. It consists of 37 fast revenue cutters for the use
of Customs ofﬁcers, that they may board vessels, make searches,
collect duties, and enforce the laws against smuggling.
STATIONERY, PRINTING AND BLANKS.—This divi-
sion purchases, prints, binds and distributes books and blanks for
use in the subdivisions of the Treasury Department.
SPECIAL AGEN T S.——This division supervises the work of
the thirty odd special agents of the Treasury who go, armed
with full authority, into the Customs Districts to note the man—
ner of doing work, correct wrong methods, and secure uniform
enforcement of the laws.
SECRET SER VI CE.———This division superintends the work
of detecting and punishing counterfeiters of the National bonds,
coin and currency. It is supported by annual appropriations
devoted to this secret, detective work.
OAPTURED PROPERTY—This division has in charge all
the records, archives and property captured or abandoned during
the Rebellion. It furnishes all information to claimants or for
historical and legal purposes which is sought through it.
ENGRA VING AND PRINTING—The engraving and
printing of government bonds, United States notes, securities,
stamps, and whatever represents value, is in charge of this Bu-
reau. It embraces many subdivisions, and is regarded as the
completest establishment of its kind in the world.
BUREAU OF THE MINT supervises the work of all the
United States Mints and Assay ofﬁces. Its chief ofﬁcer is the
Director of the Mint, salary $4,500. The United States Mints
are located at Philadelphia, Pa.; San Francisco, Cal.; New 0r-
leans, La.; Carson, Nevada. The Assay ofﬁces are located at
Denver, Col.; New York City; Helena, Montana; Boise City,
Idaho; and Charlotte, N. C. The Assay ofﬁces do not coin
money, but reduce gold and silver to ingots or bars, and stamp
the ﬁneness or quality on each bar. In addition to overseeing
the workings of the respective Mints and Assay ofﬁces, the
218 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
Director of the Mint must certify to the Secretary of Treasury
each year the actual value of the coins of every nation. The
officers directly in charge of the different Mints are called
Superintendents of Mints.
SUPER VISING ARCHITECT—This office was created in
1853, to obviate the difﬁculty of erecting the large and numerous
public buildings through irresponsible and unskilled commis~
sions. Before the creation of the oﬁ’ice there was no uniformity
in public buildings, but little taste, and poor adaptation to the '
purposes intended. The duties of the ofﬁce are to select proper
sites, submit plans and estimates, and carry on the work of con-
struction. The Supervising Architect is assisted by an able corps
of clerks and draughtsmen numbering nearly 100.
S T EAZW- VESSEL [NSPEC T [ ON.——The head of this ser-
vice is the Supervising Inspector-General of Steam-Vessels.
His duty is to enforce all the laws relating to the inspection of
steam-vessels. There are local inspectors and ofﬁcers in all the
' commercial cities of the country.
LIFE-SA VIN G SER VICE—The Superintendent of this ser-
vice has charge of all the life-saving stations on our coasts.
This service in its present form dates from 1878. It is a growing
and important service, and is at present conducted at an annual
expense of $500,000, with a force of some 1,400 men, mostly
hardy surfmen, who lead an exposed and dangerous life at points
on our coast where wrecks are most likely to occur. \
STA T [S T [ CS.—The Chief of this Bureau receives, arranges
and publishes the statistics of ﬁnance, coinage, immigration,
population, railroads, minerals, agriculture, manufacture, and
domestic and foreign commerce of the United States, sent from
every authorized source.
L1GHT-HOUSES—The Secretary of the Treasury is Presi-
dent of the Light-House Board. This Board is composed of
nine men, chosen for their scientiﬁc knowledge. They have in
charge the work of lighting the coasts of oceans and rivers. It
was organized in 1852. Their labors involve the proper lighting
of 5,000 miles of Atlantic coast, 1,500 of Paciﬁc coast, 3,000 miles
of lake coast, and 5,500 miles of river coast. Thus far about
THE UNITED STATES. 219
12,000 light-houses or stations have been erected; 3,000 buoys,
420 day beacons, 54 fog signals, and 25 light-ships have been
placed in position. - ,
MARINE HOSPITALS—This service is under a Supervis-
ing Surgeon-General. It was established july 16, I798, and re-
organized in 1870 and 1875. It is designed to afford protection
to sick and disabled seamen, with a view to encouraging ﬁt per-
sons to become sailors. The terms of enlistment require a pay-
ment of forty cents a month from seamen’s wages. This goes
to the ‘government. As a consideration for this the government
cares for them when sick or disabled at one of its Marine Hos-
pitals, or, where none exist, at any designated hospital. It is an
important service, and has charge of as many as 20,000 invalid
seamen annually. -
FTRS T C UMPT ROLLER’S Ofﬁce has charge of all civil
accounts except those relating to the Customs and Postal Ser-
vice. The ofﬁce was established September 2, I789. The First
Comptroller checks the work of the First and Fifth Auditor and
the Commissioner of the Land Ofﬁce.
SECOND C OMPT ROLLER'S Ofﬁce, established March
- 3, 18I7, revises and checks all the accounts of the Second, Third
and Fourth Auditors. _
BUREAU OF C OMPT ROLLER—The Comptroller of the.
Currency has the responsible duty of enforcing all laws relating
to the issue and regulation of the National Currency. He is
custodian of the plates from which notes are printed, supervises
the naming and starting of National banks, attends to their'clos-
ing operations when they fail, reports to Congress annually con-
cerning the entire workings of the National banking system. The
ofﬁce was established in February, 1863, and was rendered
necessary by the National Currency system which came into
existence at that time.
AUDI T ORS.—-The accounts of the Treasury Department of
whatever kind must reach ﬁnal settlement under the hands of
Auditors. There are six of these, and each is the head of a
separate Ofﬁce. The numerous accounts are subdivided accord-
ing to nature or subject, and each Auditor receives those which
by law or custom fall under his jurisdiction.
220 ' POLITICAL HISTORY OF
TREASURER—The ofﬁce of United States Treasurer was
established by act of September 2, I789. The Treasurer re-
ceives and accounts for all public moneys arising from customs,
internal revenue, sale of lands, or whatever source. The United
States Treasury is not only the Treasury at Washington, but the
sub-Treasuries located for convenience at New York, Boston,
Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, Cincinnati, New Orleans, San
Francisco and St. Louis. It comprises also certain banks which
are designated as depositaries of public moneys, though these
last cannot receive any moneys arising from customs. The
sub-Treasuries are ofﬁcered by Treasurers, who give bond and
are responsible outside of the United States Treasurer at Wash-
ington. This is why they are called Independent Treasuries.
REGISTER OF T REAS UR K-WhllC the United States
Treasurer is the ofﬁcer who actually handles the money and is
responsible for its safe-keeping, the accounts of receipts and dis—
bursements are under the supervision of the Register. This
ofﬁce was created by the same act as the Treasurer.
INTERNAL REVENUE B UREA U.—-The establishment
of a system of Internal Revenue, made necessary by the civil
war, gave rise to a Bureau devoted to the supervision of the sys-
tem. Its chief is Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The
Bureau was established by act of July I, 1862. In it centre
the accounts of the Collectors of Internal Revenue, who are
the ofﬁcers appointed to make actual collections in the Revenue
Districts into which the entire country has been divided. The
Bureau consists of several sub-divisions devoted to Law, Ac-
counts, Agents, Stamps, Tobacco and Distilled Spirits.
COAST SURVEK—Instituted Feb. 10, 1807, for mapping
the coasts, rivers, and harbors of the United States, locating
rocks, shoals, and shallows, and making charts of the soundings.
The work is under the supervision of the Secretary of the
Treasury, but is actively prosecuted by a Superintendent of
Coast Survey.
BOARD OF HEALTH—This body was created by act of
'March 3, 1879. It is composed of seven members. Their duty
is to co-operate with similar Boards in the States, and to act in-
THE UNITED STATES. 221
dependently, for the purpose of ﬁnding out how epidemics origi-
nate, and what will prevent them.
CUSTOMS SER VI CE—Custom Houses are of course only
found at the points where goods from foreign ports are landed.
These are called Ports of Entry. They are oﬁicered, in ports
of ﬁrst rank, by a Collector of the Port, who is responsible for
the execution of the tariff laws and all moneys collected as
duties on imported goods. He is also the custodian of the gov-
ernment buildings and property at the respective ports. His
work is supervised and checked by a Naval Ofﬁcer of the Port.
He is assisted by an Appraiser of the Port, whose duty it is to
ascertain the nature and true value of all goods imported. He
is further assisted by Weighers who weigh goods paying a
speciﬁc rate of duty, and by Gaugers who gauge all liquids on
which there is a duty. The Inspectors are the ofﬁcers who
police the wharves and ships and see that no goods are landed
except those for which the Collector has issued a permit. The
Surveyor of the Port has immediate charge of the Inspectors
and assigns- them to duty, though he does not appoint them.
The heads of the Customs Service are appointed by the Presi-
dent, the Deputies and Clerks by the Secretary of the Treasury.
Moneys arising from customs in the respective Districts are de-
posited in the sub—treasuries, and thence ﬁnd their way into the
central treasury. All customs accounts, statistics, etc., are re-
ported to the Secretary of the Treasury.
Of late years the Customs Service has been extended from
sea-coast ports to inland cities. Thus Cincinnati, St. Louis, and
other inland cities are Ports of Entry. Goods intended for
Inland Ports are unloaded directly from the ship into sealed cars
and carried to the Inland Port as if the ocean voyage were con-
tinued. There they are entered, appraised, and assessed with
duty. ' . -
INTERNAL REVENUE SER VI CE.—-—Like that of Cus~
toms, the active work of this service is done in the Internal
Revenue Districts. The entire country was divided into some
120 Districts, to each of which was assigned a Collector, depu¢
ties, and a corps of store—keepers, gaugers, etc. This was when
222 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
(1862-1882) the Internal Revenue laws were in full vigor. Since
the revenue taxes have been lowered, and the number of taxable
articles reduced, many of these Districts have been consolidated,
and ere long the whole system will pass away. '
Customs duties and Internal Revenue taxes are the chief
sources of government income. But it also receives a large
income from the sale of public lands. These sales were con-
ducted under the auspices of the Treasury Department till 1849,
when they were transferred to the Department of the Interior,
where we will speak of them and of the homestead law.
NA T [ ONAL BANKS—When the government ﬁrst started,
a National bank was deemed necessary to act as its ﬁnancial
agent. One was chartered in 1791 for twenty years. Attempts
to revive the charter in 1811 failed, owing to the opposition of
those who construed the Constitution narrowly. In 1816, after
the war of 1812, when the country was heavily in debt and in
need of a steady ﬁnance, another National bank was chartered
for twenty years. This was the bank which President jackson
fought so determinedly and ﬁnally drove out of existence. All
subsequent attempts to establish a. similar bank or to secure a
uniform currency failed till 1863, when the exigency of civil
war eventuated in, ﬁrst, an issue of notes (greenbacks) directly
by the government; and, second, the establishment of the
National banking system. The government had to use its
own credit in order to exist. Could it so use it as to provide a
uniform currency and at the same time relieve itself of the
trouble and expense of acting as banker for the entire people ?
This was the problem which the National banking system was
to solve. The National Banking Act is an elaborate one, but by
its provisions any number of persons not less than ﬁve may start
a National Bank by (1) certifying to the Comptroller of the Cur-
rency, a name; (2) a place; (3) the amount of capital stock
(which cannot be less than $50,000) and number of shares; (4)
names and residences of the shareholders, and number of shares
held by each; that they seek the beneﬁts of the National
Banking Act ; (6) the time when they intend to begin banking.-
These being approved, the Comptroller grants a certiﬁcate of
THE UNITED STATES. 223
incorporation, with the right to use a seal, and to engage in
legitimate banking business for twenty years from the passage
of the act. Every shareholder is personally liable for the debts
of the bank to the amount of his stock. But as yet the bank
has no bills or notes. In order to obtain these it must buy
interest-bearing United States bonds to an amount not less than
one-third of the paid-up stock of the bank, but the amount need
not be in excess of $50,000. These are deposited in the United
States Treasury. Circulating notes, engraved and printed in the
Treasury Department, are then issued to the bank, to the value
of the bonds deposited, less ten per cent. If $50,000 in bonds
have been deposited, $45,000 in circulating notes are issued in
different denominations._* Should the bank fail the deposited
bonds are sold, and with the proceeds the notes are redeemed.
The fact that there is a margin of ten per cent. between the
notes and the security for them, and the additional fact that that
margin is increased by the bonds being above par, has given rise
to the expression that the notes of a broken national bank are
better than those of a sound one.
No National bank’ can loan money directly on real estate
security. This is to keepthem on a strictly commercial basis.
The notes formerly issued were ones, twos, ﬁves, tens, twenties, I
ﬁfties, one hundreds, ﬁve hundreds, and one thousands; but
since the resumption of specie payments (1879) the ones and
twos have been discontinued, in order to give circulation to the
silver dollars.
The total output of National Bank notes has been in round
numbers, $350,000,000. Add to this the total issue of Green-
backs or Legal Tenders, $346,681,016, and the total National
paper currency of the country (not including fractional currency)
is $700,000,000.
The National Banks are taxed annually one per cent. on circu-
lation, one-half per cent. on deposits, and one-half per cent. on
the capital stock over and above the amount invested in
* A bill has been up in several Congresses which seeks to increase the
issue of notes to an amount equal to the par value of the bonds deposited.
224 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
United States bonds. They are not exempt from State tax-
ation. The total tax paid by National Banks is nearly $7,000,—
000 annually.
These banks now number 2,852, and they are situated in all
parts of the country. They have almost entirely taken the place
of the old State banks, and they secure to the people a uniform
system of currency and banking. The note of a bank in Maine
is as good in California as at home. The holder is secure,
because the note is backed up by security in bonds greater by
at least ten per cent. than the note itself. The notes are harder
to counterfeit. The plates are beyond the control of the bank.
The people have never had so uniform, stable, safe, and conve-
nient a paper currency.
DEBT AND BONDS—Our country has never been free
from public debt. It started under the indebtedness of the war
for independence, which when gathered together in 1791 footed
$7 5,463,476. This ﬂuctuated up to 1804, when it was $86,427,-
120. It then decreased till in 1812 it was $45,209,737. The
war of 1812 came on, and in 1816 the debt was $127,334,993.
By gradual reduction, it was only $37,513 in 1835, when the
government was practically out of debt. .But in 1836 it was
$336,957, and gradually ascended till the time of the Mexican
war, say 1846, when it was $15,550,202. Then in consequence
of that war it leaped, 1848, to $47,044,862, and in 1849 to $63,-
061,858. In 1856 it was down to $31,972,537, but by 1860 up
to $64,842,287. Then came the civil war with its immense ex-
penditure. By 1866, the year in which the debt reached its
highest ﬁgures, it was $2,778,236,173. To handle this immense
indebtedness put the energies of the country to extreme test,
necessitated new subjects and methods of taxation, multiplied
collection machinery, and made the Treasury Department a
centre of extraordinary power and responsibility. The tariff
laws were strengthened and given protective features. The
system of Internal Revenue was formulated.
One source of war revenue has passed entirely away. This
was what was known as the Income Tax, which originated in
1863, and went out of existence by 1873. It was'in its greatest
THE UNITED STATES. 225
vigor in 1866, when the government receipts from it were $72,-
982,160.
At the close of the war the government found itself not only
with this immense indebtedness of $2,778,2 36,1 73 on hand, but
it was in an ugly and pressing shape. \Nar times did not
facilitate funding; that is, gathering the ﬂoating debt up and
placing it at interest, with gradual and remote payments of the
principal. The shape of the debt was as follows:
Debt already funded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,109,568,191.8o
Matured debt.‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,503,020.09
Temporary loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107,148,713.16
Certiﬁcates of indebtedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85,093,000.oo
Five per cent. legal tender notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3,954,230.00
Compound interest legal tender notes . . . . . . . . . . . 217,024,160.00
Seven-thirty notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830,000,000.00
U. Legal tender notes (greenbacks) . . . . . . . . . . 433,160,569.oo
Fractional currency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,344,742. 51
Suspended requisitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 1 1 1,000.00
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,845,907,626.56
Less cash in the treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67,67 1,45 3. 56
Total as above . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,778,236,173.00
Amount funded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,109,568,191.80
Amount unfunded or ﬂoating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,668,667,981.20
Here then was a total of $1,668,667,981 which was not
funded, was ﬂoating about loosely, and which the government
was liable to be called on to pay at any moment. Worst of all,
a part of it (the $830,000,000 of seven-thirties)'bore interest at
7 3-10 per cent. Of course no government could ‘stand for a
moment in the face of such a drain as would be occasioned by
the presentation of these ﬂoating claims for payment. Yet it
must either pay, fund, or be dishonored. - It could not do the
ﬁrst, nor submit to the third. Large as the debt was, the
national honor was above all price. It must, therefore, do what
all corporations and business ﬁrms do, viz.: fund its ﬂoating in-
debtedness. This was a mighty work. In order to do it bonds
were prepared, of various denominations, and mostly bearing
interest at six per cent. These were to run not less than ﬁve
nor more than twenty years. Hence they were called ﬁve-
twenty six per cents. They were offered to the banks, and
through them to the people. Could the government get enough
15
226 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
money from their sale to pay its ﬂoating indebtedness of $1,668,-
667,981? Could it pay its interest promptly, and have some-
thing over toward the principal? We have seen how the tariff laws
and other revenue laws were strengthened. There would be
enough and more. The people responded with a hearty good-will.
The bonds were taken with alacrity, and looked upon as so
desirable an investment that they soon sold at a premium. In a
short time the government funded, through its ﬁve-twenty six
per cents. $1,602,698,950 of its ﬂoating indebtedness, and
thus relieved itself of all immediate pressure, except what
was necessary to provide interest, and gradually reduce the
principal.
Such was the favor with which these securities (bonds) were
received, that the government concluded it might lower its in-
terest on them, and still sell them, thus saving a large amount
of interest. This was no longer funding, but refunding. Re-
funding began by acts of july 14,. 1870, and jan. 20, 1871.
Again bonds were authorized to be issiied to the extent of '
$1,500,000,000, bearing interest, $500,000,000 at ﬁve per cent.
and payable in ten years or at the pleasure of the United States;
$300,000,000 at 4 % per cent. ; the balance at 4 per cent. With
the proceeds of these, the former high interest-bearing bonds
were to be lifted. The crisis of 187 3 interfered with their sale.
But by 1877 they struck a favorable market, were successfully
disposed of, and soon at a premium, as before. This favorable
situation the government again took advantage of, and by repeated
acts down to 1883, succeeded in carrying out a system of refund-
ing which greatly lowered the interest on its bonds, the rates
now running from 4% to 3 per cent. It at the same time paid
off the principal of its debt at an average rate of $70,000,000 a
year, so that the total is now below $I,2 50,000,000.
It is not supposed that the process of refunding is yet com-
plete. Many think that the 4 and 4% per cent. bonds can be
refunded into 3 per cents, _and some enthusiastic persons think
the whole interest-bearing debt can be ﬂoated at less than 3 per
cent. This is hardly possible so long as the government adheres
to the policy of paying off the debt so fast. This policy gives
THE UNITED STATES. 227
to a bond too short a life. It is not issued for any great number
of years, and is called in when there is money enough to meet
it. Thus the inducement of length of time, which is supposed
to overcome the non-inducement of a low rate of interest, is lost.
And as to this policy of rapid payment of the principal, it is be-
ginning to receive criticism. The time was when it was proper, as
helping to show the nation's earnestness and for the support of
its credit. -This time has passed. There is now no reason for
haste, except a desire to be free from the annual loss of interest.
Whether it is better to save this annual loss by prompt payment
of the principal, or distribute the burden of payment over the
generations that'are to follow us, is a question which now draws
a variety of opinions.
A concluding remark must be made about the management
of the Treasury Department during this period of immense
receipts, expenditures and great responsibility. It has been
such as to show less loss to the government than any former
period. Considering, the great influx of new force, the rush
of business during war times, the newness and experimen~
tal character of much of its‘ work, this is agreeably surpris-
ing, yet it may go to prove that a ﬁnancial department, like a
ﬁnancial man, is capable of rising with an emergency, and meet-
ing with honor the severest tests of ability and honesty. In
answer to a request from the Senate the Treasury Department
submitted the following table, showing the per cent. of losses in
its transactions since the beginning of the government and up to
June 30, 1879:
Loss on
Received and
Administrations. Expended. Total loss. $1,000.
Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Yrs. $112,560,504 $250,970 $2.22
Adams, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 90,733,612 235,412 2.59
Jefferson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 219,072,736 603,468 2.75
Madison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 526,764,050 2,191,660 4.16
Monroe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 376,328,275 3,229,787 8.58
Adams, John Q . . . . . . . . . . . 4 201,488,077 885,374 4.39
Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 500,081,748 3,761,112 7.52
Van Buren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 285,327,949 3,343,792 11.71
Harrison and Tyler.. . . . . . . . 4 244,590,156 1,565,903 6.40
Polk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 423,913,687 1,732,851 4.08
Taylor and Fillmore . . . . . .. 4 432,861,677 1,814,409 4.19
Pierce... . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 608,257,816 2,167,982 3.56
Buchanan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 697,500,871 2,659,108 3.81
228 ' POLITICAL HISTORY OF
Received and Loss on
. Administrations. Expended. Total loss. $1,000.
LIHCOIIL. . . . . . . . . .. 4Yrs. $9,386,697,I44 $7,200,984 $0.16...
Johnson . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . 4 8,014,908,984 4,619,600 .57
Grant . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Io,842,922,583 2,622,479 .24
Hayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 3,353,629,856 2,677 .008
SECRETARIES OF THE TREASURY.
Names. Appointed. Names. Appointed.
Alex. Hamilton, N. Y. . . .Sept. 11, 1789 James Guthrie, Ky . . . . . ..Mar. 7, 1853
Oliver Wolcott, Conn. . . .Feb. 2, 1795 Howell Cobb, Ga..... . . . Mar. 6, 1857
Samuel Dexter,. Mass. . . . .Jan. 1, 1801 Philip F. Thomas, Md. . . .-Dec. 12, 1860
Albert Gallatin, Pa . . . . . . . May I4, 1801 John A. Dix, N. Y. . . .Jan. 11, 1861
Geo. W. Campbell, Tenn..Feb. 9, 1814 Salmon P. Chase, Ohio... .Mar. 7, 1861
Alex. Dallas, Pa . . . . . ..Oct. 6, 1814 Wm. P. Fessenden, Me.. .July 1, 1864
Wm. H. Crawford, Ga... .Oct. 22, 1816 Hugh McCulloch, Ind... Mar. 7, 1865
Richard Rush, Pa... . . . . .Mar. 7, 1825 Geo. S. Bontwell, Mass“ :Mar. 11, 1869
Samuel D. Ingham, Pa.. Mar. 6, 1829 Wm. A. Richardson, MassMar. 17, 1873
Louis McLane, Del. . . . . Aug. 2, 1831 Benj. H. Bristow, Ky. . . .June 4, 1874
Wm. Duane, Pa . . . . . . .May 29, 1833 Lot M. Morrill, Me . . . . .July 7, 1876
Roger B. Taney, Md.. . . .Sept. 23, 1833 John Sherman, Ohio... . . .Mar. 8, 1877
Levi Woodbury, N. H... .June 27, 1834 Wm. H. Windom, Minn. .Mar. 5, 1881
Thomas Ewing, Ohio... . .Mar. 5, 1841 Charles Folger, N. Y.. Oct. 27, 1881
Walter Forward, Pa.... . . . Sept. 13, 1841 \Nalter Q. Gresham, Ind. .Sept. 2, 1884
John C. Spencer, N. Y... .Mar. 3, 1843 Hugh McCulloclI, N. Y. .Oct. 28, 1884
Geo. M. Bibh, Ky . . . . . .June 15, 1844 Daniel Manning, N. Y... .Mar. 6, 1885
Robert J. Walktr, Miss... Mar. 6, 1845 Charles S. Fairchild, N. Y.April 1, I887
Wm. M. Meredith, I’a. . . .Mar. 8, I849 '
Thomas Corwin, Ohio. . . .July 23, 1850

THE WAR DEPARTMENT.
As the name indicates, this Department has charge of all mat-
ters appertaining to the army. It is presided over by the Secre-
tary of War, salary $8,000, who is appointed by the President
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for the term
of four years unless sooner removed. He is a member of the
President’s Cabinet, and in a military point of view ranks next
to the President.
The War-Department was established by act of August 7,
1789, and therefore is as old as the government. The act says
“ there shall be an executive Department denominated the De-
partment of War, and there shall be a principal ofﬁcer therein to
be called the Secretary for the Department of War, who shall
perform such duties as shall be entrusted to or enjoined on him
by the President agreeably to the Constitution, relative to land
forces, ships, or warlike stores of the United States.” The De-
partment then had control of “land forces and ships.” It was
both a War and Navy Department, the latter not having a sepa-
rate existence till some time afterwards.
THE UNITED STATES. 229
SEORETAR Y ’S DUTIES—When it is said that the De-
partment has charge of all matters relating to war a sharp line
must be drawn between its affairs and those of the army in the
ﬁeld. The responsibility for campaigns, battles and manoeuvres
rests on the generals who represent the commander-in-chief, the
President, in the ﬁeld. The War Department is the civil side
of army affairs. The Secretary conducts the business of the De-
partment. In war he is one hand of the Presidenut and the army
the other. '
He attends to all commissions of ofﬁcers, to the raising of
forces, to the matter of army supplies. He has charge of all
captured property, and sees to the transportation of troops, muni-
tions, equipments and stores throughout the United States. He.
deﬁnes the quantity and kind of supplies and attends to their
purchase through the Subsistence and Quartermaster’s Depart-
ments. He procures buildings to store them in. He receives
ﬁeld ofﬁcers’ accounts of clothing, munitions, supplies of every
kind, and adjusts and passes on their accounts. In connection
with army ofﬁcers he must see to the condition of prisoners of
war, advise with the militia ofﬁcers of the States, issue proposals
for supplies, and report to Congress annually or whenever called
upon, the transactions of his ofﬁce and its’ condition. An im-
portant duty added since the civil war is the purchase, prepa-
ration and care of the national cemeteries, of which there are
seventy-nine, containing the bodies of tens of thousands of Union
soldiers, known and unknown.
His ofﬁce is divided into sub-Departments, Bureaus 0r Divi—
sions, each of which is presided over by a responsible head.
ADFU T AN T-GENERAL—This subdepartment is in charge
of an Adjutant-General of the Army, who has army rank
as Brigadier, and army pay. The business of the ofﬁce is the
organization and management of the armies. All orders to the
military establishments and armies go out through this ofﬁce.
It attends to recruiting the armies, keeps all muster in and out
rolls, and ofﬁcers’ accounts, furnishes statements to Treasury
Auditors, Pension Commissioners, Paymasters, Commissaries and
Quartermasters.
230 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
[NSPEC T OR- GENERAL.-——The Inspector-General ranks as
Brigadier, with army pay. His business is to keep the Secretary
of War posted as to the true condition of the army, its tents,
arms, clothing, quarters, accoutrements, drill, discipline, and
entire condition.
SIGNAL OFFICE—This useful ofﬁce, a comparatively mod-
ern one, is part civic and part military. It has charge, under the
instructions of the Secretary of War, of a School of Instruction
at Fort Whipple, Va., where war manoeuvres, the construction
and working of rapid ﬁeld telegraphy, the erection and manage-
ment of army signals, and the control of all instruments of
ﬁeld observation, are taught.
It has also charge of the Army Signal Corps, which is a mod-
ern army essential, in time of active service, for safe and speedy
operations. It is also useful in time of peace for the assistance
it renders in conducting the Sea Coast Service, with its signal
codes and quick telegraphy.
To this ofﬁce belongs also the well-known, popular, and now
indispensable Weather Bureau, over which the familiar “ Clerk
of the Weather” presides. This Bureau conducts its business
through Signal Stations erected at all exposed points on ocean,
lake and river coast, at prominent points of observation in cities
and on mountains and plains, with which it is connected by tele-
graph. It is the duty of the ofﬁcers in charge of these stations
to telegraph, at least once a day, to the Central Bureau in Wash-
ington the state of the barometer and thermometer, the velocity
of wind and its direction, the nature of the storm or calm that ex-
ists; in short, such a full condition of the weather as will enable a
forecast to be made inland or for the sea, for the general use of
sailors, merchants, farmers and others likely to be affected by it.
When the conditions on coasts are dangerous, storm signals are
erected, and mariners either heed them or sail at their peril.
The active operations of the Weather Bureau date from 1868-69.
QUAR T ERMAS T ER.—This Department purchases and dis-
tributes to the army all military stores and supplies, such as
clothing, fuel, forage, camp and garrison equipage (the furnish~
ing of rations belongs to the Subsistence Department), and fur-
THE UNITED STATES. 231
nishes means of transportation for the army and its stores. It
is presided over by the Quartermaster-General, who ranks as
Brigadier, with army pay. While the duties of the central ofﬁce
at Washington are important and responsible, its main responsi-
bility is in the camps and garrisons in time of peace, and in the
ﬁeld in time of war. It reaches these remote points by means
of Quartermasters. These subordinate ofﬁcers are the agents
of the Quartermaster-General. They represent the movable
quality of the Ofﬁce. They are at all the military post's during
peace. In time of war their number has to be increased, and they
are found in all the armies and sections of armies superintending
the matter of transportation and supplies, holding the ofﬁcers to
strict account for whatever is furnished, and in turn accounting
themselves to their chief for what they receive and distribute.
COMMISSARY DEPARTMENT—This ofﬁce is presided
over by the Commissary-General, who ranks as Brigadier,
with army pay. It is not unlike the Quartermaster-General’s
ofﬁce, except that it has sole charge of the supply of army ra-
tions. It buys all rations and furnishes them to the ofﬁcers and
men of the army at cost price. It carries its work down to the
military posts and to the camps in the ﬁeld by means of subor-
dinates called Commissaries, who, like Quartermasters, are more
numerous in time of war than in peace, and who must be
promptly on hand with food whenever it is needed.
PA YMAS T ER.——This Department is presided over by a Pay-
master-General, who ranks as Brigadier with army pay. The
title suggests the duty, which is to pay the army and keep all
the pay rolls and accounts connected with the operation. The
ﬁeld and post work of the ofﬁce is carried on by means of Pay-
masters in fact, who are assigned to duty at the respective posts
and in the divisions of the army in time of active service.
MED] CAL DEPARTMENT—Thechief ofﬁcer of this De-
partment is the Surgeon-General, who ranks as Brigadier with
army pay. He is chosen for his scientiﬁc knowledge. The De-
partment has in charge the matter of army hospitals and hospital
supplies, the care of sick and wounded soldiers, the furnishing
of artiﬁcial limbs, eyes and other appliances for the maimed, re-
232 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
ports on hospital diseases, treatments and operations, the control
of the Medical Museum, which, by the way, is now one of the
best appointed and most interesting of its kind in the world.
ORDNAN CE OFFICE—The ofﬁcer in charge of this De-
partment is called the Chief of Ordnance. He ranks as Briga-
dier with army pay. This ofﬁce attends to procuring and sup-
plying to the army all cannon, gun-carriages, and all ammunition
and equipments for the same, whether for use in garrison, ﬁeld
or siege service. It is the heavy gun department of the war
branch. It operates through Ordnance Stations, situated in dif-
ferent portions of the country, where ordnance is kept for con-
venience of use and for preservation, and which are called Ar-
senals. There are now twenty-two of these Ordnance Stations or
Arsenals in the country. In this list of Arsenals are included
the Armory at Springﬁeld, Mass., where small arms and am-
munition are made and stored. There was a large Armory at
Harper’s Ferry, which was destroyed during the civil war.
CHIEF ENGINEER—The responsible ofﬁcer is a Chief of
Engineers, who ranks as Brigadier, with army pay. The duties
of this office are various. The Chief of Engineers commands
the Corps of Engineers whose duty is to attend to locating,
building and caring for fortiﬁcations, coast and inland; design-
ing, building and handling pontoon bridges; designating and
carrying out river and harbor improvements; making surveys for
military purposes. The Chief of Engineers is also Commissioner
of Public Buildings and Grounds in Washington. He is Superin-
tendent of the Washington Aqueduct, which supplies the capital
with water, and from the Engineer Corps are selected three of
the seven members of the Mississippi River Commission, which
has charge of the public improvements along that stream.
SECRETARIES ‘OF WAR.

Names. Appointed. Names. Appointed.
Henry Knox, Mass . . . . . . .Sept. 12, 1789 John Armstrong, N. Y. . . .Jan. 13, 1813
Timothy Pickering, Pa. . . .Jan. 2, 1795 James Monroe, Va . . . . . . . . Sept. 27, 1814
James McHenry, Md.. . . .Jan. 27, 1796 Wm. H. Crawford, Ga.... .Aug. 1, 1815
James Marshall, Va . . . . ..May 7, 1800 Geo. Graham (adz'n.), Va..April 7, 1817
Samuel Dexter, Mass. . . . .May 13, 1800 John C. Calhoun, S. C. . . .Oct. 8, 1817
Roger Griswold, Conn.. . .Feb. 3, 1801 James Barbour, Va. . . . . . .Mar. 7, 1825
Henry Dearborn, Mass. .Mar. 5, 1801 Peter B. Porter, N. Y.. . . .May 26, 1828
William Eustis, Mass. . . .Mar. 7, 1809 John H. Eaton, Tenn.. . . .Mar. 9, 1829
THE UNITED STATES. 233
SECRETARIES OF WAR— Continued.
Names. Appointed. Names. Appointed.
Louis Cass, Mich . . . . . . . .Aug. 1, 1831 Simon Cameron, Pa . . . . . .Mar. 5, 1861
Benj. F. Butler, N. Y.. . . .Mar. 3, 1837 Edwin M. Stanton, Pa. . . .Jan. 15, 1862
Joel R. Poinsett, S. C. . . ..Mar. 7, 1837 U. Grant (ad 512.), 11]... .Aug. 12, 1867
John Bell, Tenn . . . . . . . . .Mar. 5, 1841 Edwin M. Stanton, Pa. . . .Jan. 14, 1868
John McLean, O . . . . . . . .Sept. 13, 1841 L. Thomas (ad 512.), Md. .Feb. 21, 1868
John C. Spencer,N. Y. . . .Oct. 12, 1841 John M. Schoﬁeld, lll. . . .May 28, 1868
James M. Porter, Pa . . . . . .Mar. 8, 1843 John A. Rawlins, Ill.. . . ..Mar. 11, 1869
William Wilkins, Pa... . . .Feb. 15, 1844 \Villiam T. Sherman, 0.. ..Sept. 9, 1869
William L. Marcy, N. Y. .Mar. 6, 1845 William W. Belknap,Iowa.Oct. 25, 1869
George W. Crawford, Ga..Mar. 8, 1849 Alphonso Taft, O . . . . . .. Mar. 8, 1876
Winﬁeld Scott (adz'n.),Va..July 23, 1850 James D. Cameron, Pa... ..May 22, 1876
Charles M. Conrad, La.. ..Aug. 15, 1850 Geo. W. McCrary, Iowa. .Mar. 12, 1877
Jefferson Davis, Miss... . . .Mar. 5, 1853 Alexander Ramsey, Minn..Dec. 10, 1879
John B. Floyd, Va . . . . . ..Mar. 6, 1857 Robert T. Lincoln, Ill... .Mar. 5, 1881
Joseph Holt, Ky.. . . . . . ..Jan. 18, 1861 Wm. C. Endicott, Mass. .Mar. 6, 1885
T HE ARM Y._—-The army of the United States is in one sense
an organization separate from the War Department, in another
connected with it. Its ﬁeld administrations are separate, yet in
all things appertaining to its supplies, enlistments, accounts, the
two are inseparable. The question of a standing army in this
country—that is, an army in time of peace—has always been a
troublesome one, and the policy has been to keep it reduced to
the lowest standard possible. This policy results from a whole-
some dread of such large standing armies as enable European
monarchs to keep their thrones, and which are a constant menace
to the peace of nations, as well as a great source of expense to
the supporting governments. But our experience has shown
the necessity of at least a small standing army for the purpose
of executing the laws in exposed places, as on the border, and
suppressing disturbances wherever they may arise. The moral
effect of an army, as an arm of the executive, is also very great.
Power is far more imposing and effective when backed by a vigor
which lawlessness regards it folly to dispute, or before which it
quails; and power is never so impotent and ridiculous as when

‘attempts to exercise it are foiled by the mob. The dignity and
efﬁcacy of executive authority require, as things go, an army of
some shape and proportion; and ‘a navy too. The economic
argument in favor of an army is also very great. Besides assur-
ing peace and protection it is the nucleus of that larger army
which is made up of volunteers and called into service when
234 POLITICAL HISTORY.
emergency requires. It is a constant training school for ofﬁcers
and men, so that the country is never without a sufficient amount
of military discipline to meet the needs of larger called armies,
when the condition is one of active war.
The army of the United States is called the Regular army in
contradistinction to that added to it in time of war, called the
Volunteer army. It is also thus distinguished from the militia
of the several States, and the militia system, which is a mixed
government and State system.
The present army is not in excess of 25,000 men, and, by act
of june 18, 1878, cannot exceed 30,000. Enlistments are for
ﬁve years. There are twenty-ﬁve regiments of infantry, ten of
cavalry and ﬁve of artillery, and a force of 1,000 Indian scouts.
An infantry regiment is composed often companies, of ﬁfty men
each, which the President may increase to 100.
A regiment of cavalry consists of twelve‘ troops, and each
troop of 78 men. A regiment of artillery consists of twelve bat-
teries, and each battery of 120 men. These ﬁgures are the
maximum of each. They are in excess of the actual number
in each regiment and company.
The higher officers of the army are a General and Lieutenant-
General, which two are honorary, conferred only at times on
account of distinguished service, and expire with the death or
resignation of their incumbent. The salary of the General is
$13,500, that of Lieutenant-General $11,000. The regular
ofﬁcers are Major-Generals, salary $7,500; Brigadier-Generals,
salary $5,500; Colonels, salary $3,500; Captains, salary $1,800;
and Lieutenants, $1,600. 8
Then there are with the army representatives or duplicates of
each of the departments we have seen in connection with the
Department of War, as Adjutant-General’s Department, Quar-
termaster’s Department, Inspector-General’s Department, Engi-
neer Corps, Ordnance Department, Medical Department, Pay
Department, Signal Ofﬁcer, Bureau of Military justice, Chaplains,
bands, etc., all of which have their place and add to the comfort
and efﬁciency of the force. The army is governed by a code
prescribed by Congress called Articles of War. They are 128
.I”
hit... I
l l.-~;l
' i I
-.s-.


i‘ > M‘ .'\-I
PARA DE GRDUN Do_
'~ P in
IY‘I'EIIIIIII


>—-__—‘
w
._< _i-MAI ~ 5
‘2-, .. ﬁ~_._____-—=
.AOAIJ‘EIMLYEGEEITTJTRET BARRACKS.

VIEWS AT MILITARY ACADEMY, WEST POINT.
235
236 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
in number; and are read at the time of enlistment and every six
months afterwards.
A charitable provision in our army system is, ﬁrst, gradually
increasing pay for the minor ofﬁcers as they add to their years
of service, and second, three-fourth pay to all commissioned
ofﬁcers when they are placed on the retired list. Ofﬁcers pass
to the retired list by law after thirty-two years of service or on
arriving at the age of sixty-two, but may be retired for honor-
able cause and by proper authority at any time.
MILITARY ACADEMIC—This government school for the
education of men in the science and art of war is situated at
West Point on the Hudson. It was authorized by act of Con- .
gress in 1802, and then instituted in a modest way. It has since
grown to be a large and useful institution, ranking with the best
of its kind in the world. Its chief ofﬁcer is a superintendent,
who ranks as Colonel. It has a large corps of professors de-
voted to teaching tactics, engineering, philosophy, mathematics,
history, geography, ethics, chemistry, mineralogy, geology,
drawing, modern languages, gymnastics, music, etc.; the idea
being to provide not only men skilled in whatever appertains to
army affairs, but educated gentlemen also.
Each Congressional district and Territory in the, United States
is entitled to have one cadet or scholar at the Military Academy.
The District of Columbia isentitled to one, and the United
States to ten, called cadets at large. The President selects the
cadets at large. The Secretary of War selects those from the
Congressional districts, at the request of the representative
thereof in Congress. Candidates must be between seventeen and
twenty-two years old, at least ﬁve feet in height, physically per-
fect, and must be proﬁcient in the elementary branches. They
are paid $540 a year, which is regarded as sufﬁcient to maintain
them. They graduate with the rank of lieutenant in the army,
and are standing candidates for an active place with that rank.
The academy is visited annually by a commission appointed by
the President and composed of members of Congress and mili-
tary ofﬁcers, who report to the Secretary of War for the use of
Congress. I
THE UNITED STATES. 237
NAVY DEPARTMENT.
The Navy Department was at ﬁrst connected with the War
Department. It was erected into a separate department by act
of April 30, 1798, and went into operation in June, I 798. Its
chief ofﬁcer is the Secretary of the Navy, salary $8,000, ap-
pointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, for four years, unless sooner removed. He ranks as
a member of the’ cabinet. Like all the other departments, this
is divided into a number of Bureaus or Divisions, for its more
effective working. The name of the department suggests that
it is devoted to the naval affairs of the country. The question
of a navy has always been an interesting one, and parties have
often divided on the propriety of keeping a naval establishment
in time of peace, likewise over the policy of strengthening
it in time of emergency. It must be said that in time of war,
when our destinies were all in the keeping of our vessels of war
and our hardy sailors, that the American Navy has been a source
of safety and credit, and has given proof that we can conduct
ocean warfare with all the brilliancy and effect of those who
boast of more formidable ships and thoroughly trained mar-
iners.
SECRETARY ’S DUTIES—He must provide all naval
stores and construct, arm, equip and‘ employ vessels of war.
All captures of ships, standards and guns must be reported to
him and pass into his custody. He prepares and publishes all
charts, maps, sailing directions and nautical books, bearing on
navigation, which he deems necessary. He reports annually to
Congress the state of the navy and submits estimates for ap-
propriations. He accounts for all disbursements on behalf of the
navy. He establishes coal stations in different parts of the
world, disposes of old ships and worn-out equipments, acts as
trustee of the Navy Pension F und'and Privateer Fund; in
short does all that appertains'to eﬂicient management of naval
affairs.
YARDS AND DOCKS—This Bureau has charge of the
Navy Yards and Naval Stations, their construction and main~
238 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
tenance, and the supply of timber therefor. There are several
Navy Yards and Stations in the country, located at what are
supposed to be available points, as at Portsmouth, N. H.;
Brooklyn, N. Y.; Philadelphia, Pa.; Boston, Mass; Washing-
ton, D. C.; Norfolk, Va.; Pensacola, Fla; Mare Island, Cal.;
New London, ‘Conn. (N. Station); Port Royal, S. C. (store ships).
They were erected for the purpose of building ships of war, but
that work has been discontinued at many of them. They are
convenient stations and repair-shops, and no longer a reliance for
the speedy construction of large and effective war-ships, owing
to the cost of properly maintaining them, and the spasmodic
demand for their services. The Chief of the Bureau of Yards
and Docks ranks as a Captain in the navy.
EQUIPMENT AND RECR U] T fNG.—-—The Chief of this
Bureau ranks as Commodore in the navy. It is the recruiting
office of the navy, and attends to the equipment of vessels of
war with sails, rigging, anchors, fuel, etc.
NA VfGATfON—The Chief of this Bureau ranks as Com-
modore. He has a chief clerk and four assistants. The Naval
Observatory and Hydrographic Ofﬁce are in the care of this
Bureau, which in addition supplies vessels of war with ﬂags,
charts, signals, chronometers, barometers, glasses, etc.
The Naval Observatory just mentioned is the counterpart, in
America, of the Greenwich Observatory in England, and arose
from the same necessity; to wit, that for accurate astronomical
observations and safe computations for the purposes of naviga-
tion. The Observatory employs a Superintendent, who ranks
as Rear Admiral, and ten assistant professors who rank as naval
officers of different grades. It is a ﬁnely equipped institution
and employs some of the best astronomical observers and calcu-
lators in the country. As to astronomical observations its work
is the same as that of the numerous collegiate and private ob-
servatories throughout the country, but aside from that, its
energies are devoted to the tabulation of results, and the turning
of discoveries, corrections, and calculations to practical scientiﬁc
account.
Scarcely less important is the Hydrographic Ofﬁce, where the
THE UNITED STATES. 289
results of surveys, soundings and coast, lake and river observa-
tions are engraved, printed and published in map, chart or book
form and given out for the use of naval vessels and those of the
merchant marine. Its Chief ranks as Captain in the navy. The
Nautical Almanac is published from this Ofﬁce.
BUREAU OF ORDNANCE—The Chief of this Bureau
ranks as Commodore in the navy. He has charge of the manu-
facture of naval ordnance, ammunition, armament for vessels, of
arsenals and magazines, the torpedo service and stations, all ex-
periments for testing guns, torpedoes and other naval weapons.
CONS T R U C T 1 ON AND REPAIRS—The Chief of this Bu-
reau ranks as Commodore. He controls all dry-docks, and
designs, builds and ﬁts out vessels of war.
S T EAMEN GTNEERTN G.—The Chief ranks as Commo-
dore. He controls the designing, manufacturing and adjusting
of all the steam-engines and steam-machinery of war vessels.
PRO VISION AND CLOTHING—The Chief of this Bu-
reau ranks as Commodore. The ofﬁce supervises the purchase
and supply of food and clothing for the navy.
MEDICINE AND S URGER K—The Chief ranks as Com-
modore. The Bureau supplies medicines, instruments and
medical stores to vessels of war and marine hospitals and
accounts for the same. _
The Navy, like the Army, has given rise to a set of charitable
and educational institutions which are objects of pride on the
part of the Department and of great utility. The ﬁrst of these
is the
NAVAL ASYLUM located at_ Philadelphia. It is a home
for old or disabled naval ofﬁcers, seamen and marines. It oper-
ates outside of and distinct from the pension system. Navy
pensioners may commute their pensions for places in the Asylum.
The applicant must be unable to work and must have served
twenty years in the navy. If admitted, the Asylum is his home
till death, on condition that he obeys its rules, which are quite
rigid. For good conduct one dollar a month is awarded to each
sojourner. The institution is presided over by a governor, with
navy rank and pay.
240 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
NA VAL HOSP! T ALS.——-These are institutions for the tem-
porary treatment of sick and disabled seamen. They are sup—
ported by an annual appropriation. There are eighteen Naval
Hospitals in the country, located at leading ports or wherever
there are naval stations, and one at Yokohama in Japan.
NA VAL A CADEMK—This Academy, a national institution,
is as much a part of the Navy Department as the Military
Academy is a part of the War Department. It is located at
Annapolis, Md. Its Superintendent always ranks high among
naval ofﬁcers. He is assisted by other ofﬁcers of the navy and
by a corps of professors, who teach Seamanship, gunnery, mathe-
matics, engineering, astronomy and navigation, chemistry, phys-
ics, modern languages, history, drawing, and whatever will ﬁll
out the education of a naval ofﬁcer, a private engineer or retired
gentleman. The pupils come from the Congressional districts
and Territories, one from each, with one for the District of
Columbia, and ten at large. The President appoints those at
large. " The Secretary of the Navy, deferring to the recommen-
dation of the member of Congress from a district or delegate
from a Territory, appoints those from the districts. Applicants
are examined by the Superintendent of the Academy in June
and September of each year. In order to pass they must be
physically sound, of good moral character, not under fourteen
nor over eighteen, and up to the standard in the elementary
English branches. If admitted, candidates become cadet-mid-
shipmen, and are not only pupils but inmates of the Academy
, for a term of six years, to which they must bind themselves to
add‘two years of active service if not discharged. They are
paid $500 a year from time of admission. After their eight
years of service and schooling they graduate as Midshipmen in
the navy.
There is also a course of studies in, or rather a department of,
the Academy devoted to Naval Engineering._ It is a four-year
course at the Academy and two in a vessel at sea. The pupil
in this course is a cadet-engineer. When he graduates he is
entitled to a commission as Assistant Engineer in the navy,
when there is a vacancy.
THE UNITED STATES. 241
U. S. NA VIE—The highest rank in the navy is Admiral,
salary, $13,000; the next, Vice-Admiral, salary, $9,000. These,
like General and Lieutenant-General in the army, are honorary
and temporary, and expire with those on whom they were spe-
cially conferred. The highest real or workingrank is Rear-
Admiral, salary, $6,000. Then comes, in order, Commodore,
salary, $5,000; Captain, $4,500; Commander, $3,500; Lieu-
tenant-Commander, $2,800; Lieutenant, $2,400; Master, $1,800;
Ensign, $1,200; Midshipmen, $1,000. All these salaries ‘are
actual duty salaries at sea. They are considerably less for shore
. duty. The salary of the ofﬁcers, from Lieutenant-Commander
down, increases after a service of ﬁve years from date of com-
mission. Pensions and retiracy from service on pay are on the
same general plan as prevails in the army. Enlistments in the
navy are for not less than three nor more than ﬁve years. Minors
from ﬁfteen to eighteen may be enlisted till they are twenty-one,
with the consent of parents. The total force of ofﬁcers and
men in the navy, in time of peace, or as the laws now stand,
cannot exceed 8,250. The navy is governed by a code of sixty
articles prescribed by Congress.
MARINE C ORPS.——This very useful arm of the service is a
nondescript. It is a body of enlisted men, not exceeding 2,500
in number, who are ofﬁcered and disciplined according to army
rules and tactics, who do regular military duty at United States
arsenals and naval stations, but who may be detailed for active
service on'board war vessels. They have proved excellent for
policing and garrison purposes, and the complement of them as-
signed to ships during actual war have enabled victorious vessels
to hold captured places permanently without the constant men-
ace of heavy guns.

SECRETARIES 0F NAvv.
' Name. Appointed.
George Cabot, Mass . . . . . .May 3, 1798
Benjamin Stoddert, Mass..May 21, 1798
Robert Smith, Md . . . . . . . .July 15, 1801
J. Crowninshield, Mass. . .May 3, 1805
Paul Hamilton, S. C. . . . .Mar. 7, 1809
William Jones, Pa . . . . . . .Jan. 12, I813
B.\V.Crowninshield, Mass.Dec. 19, 1814
Name. Appointed.
Smith Thompson, N. Y. ..Nov. 9, 1818
John Rogers, Mass.. . . . .Sept. 1, 1823
Samuel L. Southard, N. J.Sept. 16, 1823
John Branch, N. C. . . . . . .Mar. 9, 1829
Levi Woodbury, N. H.. . .May 23, 1831
Mahlon Dickerson, N. J. .June 30, 1834
James K. Paulding, N. Y.June 25, 1838
16 ‘
242 POLITICAL HISTORY.
SECRETARIES OF NAVY— Continued.
Name. Appointed. Name. Appa'nted.
George E. Badger, N. C. .Mar. 5, 1841 james C. Dobbin, N. C. ..Mar. 7, 1853
A. P. Upshur, Va . . . . . . . .Sept. 13, 1841 Isaac Toucey, Conn . . . . . .Mar. 6, 1857
David Henshaw, Mass... .july 24, 1843 Gideon Welles, Conn. . . ..Mar. 5, 1861
Thomas W. Gilmer, Va.. .Feb. 15, 1844 Adolph E. Borie, Pa. . . . .Mar. 5, 1869
john Y. Mason, Va . . . . . . .Mar. 14, 1844 George M. Robeson, N. j..june 25, 1869
George Bancroft, Mass. . .Mar. 10,, 1845 Rich. W. Thompson, Ind..Mar. 12, 1877
john Mason, Va . . . . . .Sept. 9, 1846 Nathan Goff, jr., W. Va. .jan. 6, 1881
William B. Preston, Va. ..Mar. 8, 1849 W. H. Hunt, La . . . . . . ..Mar. 5, 1881
William A. Graham, N. C.july 22, 1850 Wm. E. Chandler, N. H..April I, 1882
john P. Kennedy, Md.. . .july 22, 1852 Wm. C. Whitney, N. Y . .Mar. 6, 1885

INTERIOR DEPARTMENT.
This ofﬁce did not exist till authorized by act of March 3,
1849. It became necessary by reason of the great growth of
some of the Bureaus and Divisions of the other Departments,
especially those of Public Lands and Patents, and because the
time had come for a grouping of them under a head more sig-
niﬁcant of their real character. We are not sure that the title
“Interior Department” is the happiest which could have been
chosen, but it savors of home and gives one to understand that
the business of the ofﬁce relates to affairs quite within our own
boundaries. It has not only drawn something from other ofﬁces,
but has been the ofﬁce most called upon to meet the great and
growing demands of the country, whenever a Department was
needed to take control of a newly created service.
The ofﬁce has for its head a Secretary of Interior, appointed
by the President by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, for the term of four years unless sooner removed. His
salary is $8,000, and he is a Member of the Cabinet.
SECRET AR Y 'S DU T [ES—He attends to all business relat-
ing to Public lands and mines, Indians, bounty lands, patents,
custody and distribution of publications, education, census, Ter~
ritories, government asylums. He reports annually, or whenever
called upon, to Congress respecting the workings of his ofﬁce.
He prepares the Federal Blue Book or Biennial Register of all
the government employés, keeps the return oﬂice in which are
ﬁled the contracts made in the Departments of War, Navy, and
Interior, controls the Yellowstone Park, and publishes at the
IIIII IIIIIIIII‘
ll‘ l
.. llllllllllllillllllllll - ~
- I .- .....~‘m“lll"l""-lll"
.- iiml “ill “"II ‘t
{ ‘LI


PENSION OFFICE-
244 ' POLITICAL HISTORY OF
close of each session of Congress 1 1,000 copies of the laws just, i
passed. Like all the other Departments, this is divided into
Bureaus and Divisions devoted to certain duties, that the entire
work of the Department may be carried on in an orderly manner.
Perhaps the most important is the -
GENERAL LAND OFFICE—This was a part of the
Treasury Department until the creation of the Interior Depart-
ment. Quite early, the matter of disposing of the Public lands
became important, and a Land ofﬁce was created by act of April
25, 1812. This question of selling public lands and disposing
of the proceeds was for over half a century actively political, and
not until the passage of the Homestead laws, beginning in 1862,
did a satisfactory method of dealing with them exist.
The duties of the General Land Ofﬁce are attended to by a
Commissioner, who acts under the Secretary of the Interior.
These duties relate to the surveying and plotting of public
lands, their sale, and the issuing of patents for those sold. There
are local Land ofﬁces, numbering sixteen, in all the States and
Territories containing public lands for sale. These are presided
over by U. S. Surveyors-General. The SurveyonGeneral em~
ploys surveyors, draughtsmen, and clerks who are engaged in
the active work of ﬁeld surveys. This work of surveying, plot-
ting, dividing, and giving metes and bounds to public‘lands is
always going on. At ﬁrst townships are formed, six miles
square, with true east and west and north and south boundaries,
and the four corners are located and ‘marked.- Then each
township is cut in sections one mile square, or 640 acres each,
and these are subdivided into quarter sections of 160 acres
each. They are all numbered and booked, and are known,
referred to, sold, and patented according to their number and
range.
The actual selling of the lands is done through still another
set of ofﬁces more numerous than those of the Surveyors, and
located at all available points. They are known as Land ofﬁces
too, but they are Registers’ and Receivers’ ofﬁces, being presided
over each by a Register and Receiver. His business is to make
ﬁnal disposition of the lands to the actual applicant or settler,
THE UNITED STATES. 245
give him title and possession, collect the fees and purchase
money, and account to the government.
PUBLIC LANDS—These formerly existed in every State
outside of the original thirteen, but they now exist only in the
Territories, and to a greater or less extent in Alabama, Arkansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Michigan, Minnesota, Kansas,
Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida, California, Nevada, Oregon
and Colorado. The public lands are being disposed of very
rapidly. Figures respecting surveys and sales are almost daz—
zling. The sales for 1883 amounted to 16,830,000 acres, the
largest on record. In 1873 they only amounted to 3,793,000
acres, but they always fall off during hard times.‘
PUBLIC LAND S YS T EM—It may be said in general that
public lands are of two classes, one rating at $1.25 per acre, the
other at $2.50 per acre. There are four ways of getting posses~
sion: Ist, under the Homestead act; 2d, under the Pre-emption
laws; 3d, under the Timber Culture act; 4th, under the Military
bounty act. 7 The Homestead act provides that any head of a
family, or person over 21 years, a citizen or one who has declared
his intentions, may enter a homestead of 160 acres, or alternate
80 acres, of surveyed land. He must pay the entry fees, from
$7 to $22, take possession and be an actual settler for ﬁve years,
pay the government price, and get the title. Under the pre
emption laws the same class of persons may enter any unsur-
veyed, offered, or unoffered lands, and by payment of fees, and
proof of actual settlement, hold a section of the same against
sale to any one else. He must make ﬁnal proofs and payments
as under the Homestead act, in order to complete his title. Title
to a section of land may be acquired by a soldier who holds a
bounty land-warrant, said land-warrant being good payment for
the land as far as it goes. But the government has never issued
many of such land-warrants. Title may be secured under the
Timber Culture acts of 1873-78, by any actual settler who culti-
vates for two years ﬁve acres of trees. Such an one gets 80
acres; and 160 acres if he cultivate ten acres of trees. His
patent will be issued free at the end of three years, on proof of
what he has done. The design is to encourage timber culture
246 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
on farm land. Of course nothing in these acts prevents a cash
purchaser at the public auction of these lands from acquiring
patented title.
These acts all refer to the sale of Agricultural lands. The Min~
eral lands are located and disposed of under another set of regu-
lations, which miners and mining companies alone are interested
in, though all are open to the ordinary private citizen. After
1860 the policy of giving government aid to Railroads, chieﬂy
those through to the Paciﬁc, in the shape of large grants of
public lands, became popular for a time, but is so no longer.
The public lands yet unsold amount to 1,814,793,938 acres.
PENS] ON OFFICE—This important branch of the Depart-
ment of the Interior is presided over by the Commissioner of
Pensions. Our pension system began with the government and
was conducted by the Secretary of War until 1833. Then a
Pension Ofﬁce was created which remained with the War De-
partment till the establishment of the Interior Department in
1849. Our government has always been liberal in its payment
of pensions ‘to soldiers and their families. Not a year has
elapsed since the starting of the government that a good round
sum has not been paid in the shape of pensions. The average
up to 1815 would be about $100,000 yearly. From that time on
till 1865 the average would be fully $2,000,000 annually. Since
then the ﬁgures have assumed enormous proportions, owing to
the fact that the civil war greatly increased the list of pensioners,
and the further fact that Congress has exceeded all former liber-
_ality by dating the payment of pensions back to the time of in-
jury or deprivation, instead of beginning it with the date on
which the pension is granted. Our pension system does not
reach the Civil Service as in England, if we except the retiracy
of judges of the United States Courts, who may, since 1869,
retire at seventy with full salary for life, if they have served ten
years continuously. The total cost of the system for 1886 was
$63,404,864, and in 1888, $80,000,000 were asked for.
COMMISSIONERS DUTIES—He must hear through-his
examiners, surgeons, etc., all applicants for pensions, grant pen-
sion papers to the meritorious, investigate frauds, issue bounty
THE UNITED STATES. 247
land-warrants, and do all that this elaborate and expensive
system requires of him.
In paying pensions he is assisted by Pension Agents, located
at ofﬁces throughout the country called Pension Agencies.
There are now seventeen of these, located at Boston, Chicago,
Columbus, Concord, Des Moines, Detroit, Indianapolis, Knox-
ville, Louisville, Milwaukee, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburg,
St. Louis, San Francisco, Syracuse, Washington, D. C.
The manner of applying for pensions is carefully guarded by
formalities, oaths, examinations, etc., as it must necessarily be,
owing to the great number of applicants and the inducement
to raise ﬁctitious cases. The rate of pension paid is regulated
by the character of the disability and the rank of the pensioner.
Widows of soldiers'killed in service are entitled, and orphans
under sixteen. In addition to pension each soldier is entitled to
periodical allowance for an artiﬁcial limb‘or eye, if compelled to
use such.
INDIAN BUREA U.——A Bureau of Indian Affairs was estab-
lished as early as 1832, and became connected with the Interior
Department in 1849. Its chief ofﬁcer is a Commissioner of
Indian Affairs. The active work of the Bureau is done among
the Indians at Agencies, and by Agents, of which there are
some seventy, situated so as to accommodate the respective
tribes.
The government has from time to time made treaties with
different tribes, allotted reservations to others, and entered upon
a variety of contracts, possible and impossible, according to the
whim of the natives, many of which are but little better than
agreements to support whole tribes in idleness. The fulﬁllment
of these compacts makes what are called our Indian relations.
These it is the business of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs
to superintend. The fact that such superintendence never served
to ameliorate the condition of the Indian gave rise to a Board
of Indian Commissioners, composed of intelligent and charitably
disposed men, appointed by the President, and who serve with-
out pay, whose duty it is to supervise all moneys appropriated
for Indians, and inspect food and clothing purchased for their use.
248 POLITICAL ,IIIsTORY.
The necessity for such commission is a confession that the
government either had not conducted or could not conduct its
Indian affairs properly: both of which were doubtless true, in
the absence of a clearly deﬁned Indian policy, which no more
exists to-day than when the Cavalier and Puritan landed.
PA TENT OFFICE—This interesting ofﬁce is under the
immediate supervision of a Commissioner of Patents.
The name of the ofﬁce suggests its use. The ﬁrst act relating
to patents was that of April 10, 1790. It authorized the grant-
ing of patents by the Secretary of State, after consultation with
the Secretary of War and Attorney-General, though either could
act on his own responsibility. The present ofﬁce and something
like the present system was created by act of March 3, 1849, in
connection with the Interior Department. But it was not until
the act of July 8, 1870, that the existing system took full shape
and vigor. ' i
The model-rooms of the Patent Ofﬁce were begun in 1836.
‘They were greatly enlarged, and quite well ﬁlled with models,
when the ﬁre of Sept. 24, 1877, destroyed some 87,000 of them,
besides other interesting historic relics. They have been again
enlarged and are rapidly ﬁlling up with evidences of American
genius and skill. .
Patents are granted only after full designs or models have been
presented and examined by experts, and something found therein
“ new and useful, not known or used by others in this country,
and not patented or described in print in this or any other
country.” A patent for an original invention runs for seventeen
years. A patent for a design may run from three and a half
years to fourteen years.
CENSUS OFFICE—The Secretary of the Interior is charged
with the duty of taking each decennial census, through and by
means of a Superintendent of Census. The active work of
enumeration is done by means of Supervisors of districts, '
specially appointed. These send out enumerators into all the
subdivisions of a district, who gather the facts and ﬁgures from
the people, and return them in a given time. When they
reach the Central Office at Washington they are tabulated and


‘HEM Tammy/HA. OHHHQOM. 4<>w3~2®€07ﬁ U. 0.
250 POLITICAL HISTORY or
printed in the form of Census Reports. The work of census-taking
is important, and it is to be regretted that it has never reached,
in this country, the perfection it has in some others. This may
seem strange in view of the fact that the United States was the
ﬁrst nation to provide in its fundamental law for a periodical
count of its people. The ﬁrst census under the Constitution
was taken in 1790. They have been taken every ten years
since, and the results duly published. The early censuses con-
tained but little more than an enumeration of the people. The
omission of statistics and facts relating to the industries of the
country caused a general overhauling of the census methods in
1849. By act of March 3 of that year a Census Board was created,
composed of the Secretary of State, Postmaster-General and
Attorney-General, to prepare a plan for the census of 1850.
This resulted in an act of May 23, 1850, creating a Census
Ofﬁce in the Department of the Interior, with a Superintendent,
as above noted. Since then the census inquiries have been
framed so as to cover not only population, but age, nationality,
physical and mental condition, social matters, churches, schools,
industrial establishments, farms, products of every kind,‘ and
whatever will contribute to knowledge of our wealth, progress
and actual status as a people.- One hundred inquiries could be
addressed to the citizen by the census enumerator, but no more.
The three censuses taken under the act of 18 50 were great ad-
vances on those taken before, and their results form a set of
volumes which are indispensable to historians, statisticians and
students of social problems. Still the act was defective, and the
machinery under it Clumsy and uncertain. An attempt was
made to remedy it by the census act of 1880. It is not yet time
to say whether the attempt has been a success or a failure. It
has certainly not resulted in a prompter receipt, tabulation and
publication of the returns, though those already perfected show a
completeness and utility beyond all others.
BUREAU OF EDUCA T [ON—This Bureau was created by
act of March 2, 1867, and attached to the Department of the
Interior. Its Chief is a Commissioner of Education. ‘ The
' business of the Bureau is to collect, publish and disseminate
THE UNITED STATES. 251
among the people such information touching schools and school
systems as will enable them to keep pace with modern improve-
ments in school organization and management, and meet the
national desire to overcome illiteracy wherever it exists. The
Bureau was a noble conception, and its work bears on vital
points, for our Republic is ever confronting the dangers that
lurk in illiteracy. .
‘ RAILROAD AC C OUN T S.—-The Bureau was established in
1878, and connected with the Interior Department. It was made
necessary by the new policy of the government extending aid to
the Paciﬁc and other railroads. The aid to build these long,
through and necessary lines was either by guarantee of their
bonds or by gift of public lands. In either event the .govern-
ment felt that it should exercise a control over the management
of such roads to the extent of auditing their accounts and seeing
that all acts of Congress in their interest were respected. This
is the duty of the Bureau of Railroad Accounts, whose chief is
called Auditor.
CAPITOL ARCHITECT—This ofﬁcer has control of the
Capitol repairs and Capitol grounds.
GEOLOG] CAL S UR VEY. ——Under the head of Public Lands
we saw they were divided into Agricultural and Mineral Lands.
This division requires a knowledge of their geological structure
and underground resource. For this purpose the Geological
Survey was established in 1879. Its chief is called Director of
the Geological Survey. The annual appropriations for carrying
on this work of examining and classifying public lands according
to their mineral substances and worth average $100,000.
OTHER ADYUNCTS—The Secretary of the Interior was
in 1877 authorized to appoint a Commission of Entomologists
, to inquire into the visitation of the Rocky Mountain Locusts
and devise means for suppressing their annual invasions. He
appoints by law a Recorder of Deeds and Register of Wills for
the District of Columbia. With his Department is connected
the management of the Government Hospital for the Insane.
This noble institution, erected at a cost of $500,000, and contain-
ing nearly 1,000 inmates, is designed for the care and treatment
252 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
of the insane of the Army and Navy and the indigent insane of
the District of Columbia. It was founded in 1855 and stands
on a conspicuous bluff south of the Anacostia River, in full view
of the Capitol. So also it has the management of the Columbia
Institution forv the Instruction of the Deaf and Dumb, established
in 185 7, located at Washington, and designed for the free edu-
cation of the deaf and dumb of the District of Columbia, and
the paid education of pupils from all the States and Territories.
The Freedmen’s‘ Hospital and Columbia Hospital for Women
are also under the general superintendence of the Interior
Department.
SECRETARIES OF THE INTERIOR.
Name. Appointed. Name. Appointed.
Thomas H. Ewing, Ohio...Mar. 8, 1849 Columbus Delano, Ohio. .Nov. 1, 1870
Alex. H. H. Stuart, Va... .Sept. 12, 1850 Zachariah Chandler, Mich.Oct. 19, 1875
Robert McClelland, Mich..Mar. 7, 1853 Carl Schurz, Mo. . . .. ..Mar. 12, 1877
Jacob Thompson, Miss... .Mar. 6, 1857 S. J. Kirkwood, Iowa. . . .Mar. 5, 1881
Caleb P. Smith, Ind.... ...Mar. 5, 1861 Henry M. Teller, Col. . . .April 6, 1882
John P. Usher, Ind.. . . ...Jan. 8,, 1863 Lucius Q. C. Lamar, Miss.Mar. 6, 1885
James Harlan. Iowa... .. .May 15, 1865 Wm. F. Vilas, Wis . . . . . . .Dec. 5, 1887
O. H. Browning, Ill.... . . .July 27, 1866
Jacob D. Cox, Ohio . . . . ..Mar. 5, 1869

THE POST—OFFICE DEPARTMENT.
The government comes down closer to the people through the
Post-Ofﬁce Department than any other. It intimately concerns
all of us and exists for our accommodation in the matter of
correspondence with friends and business folk at home and
abroad. The Constitution, Art. 1., Sec. 8, authorizes the estab-
lishment of Post-ofﬁces and Post-roads. This is not peculiar to
our government. All civilized powers assume to do the same
thing for their people, and nearly all in the same way, so much
so at least that what is known as a Postal Union has become
possible, whereby different countries agree to recognize our
stamps on letters and engage to carry them through their mails,
we doing the same toward their stamps and with their letters.
This wonderful triumph of political civilization brings the peo-
ple of all countries in the Postal Union as closely together as if
they were of one country.
The earliest Post-Ofﬁce System in our country arose under
act of Sept. 22, 1789. It was a crude affair, run in connection
THE UNITED STATES. 253
with the Treasury Department, though presided over by an
ofﬁcer called the Postmaster—General, as to-day. There were.
then 75 post-ofﬁces in the country, and the routes extended over
1,875 miles. It cost the country in 1790, $32,140, and the re-
ceipts were $37,935. Now there are in round numbers 54,000
post-ofﬁces, a routeage of 372,000 miles, an annual revenue of
$44,000,000, and an expenditure somewhat in excess of this
revenue. Mail facilities are enjoyed by the people in even
remote places. It has always been the policy of the government
to favor this method of intercommunication not more for purposes
of business than to foster exchange of thought and a’ truly educa-
tional spirit. It has never been a part of this policy to make
money out of the system. The cost has therefore, as a rule,
been in excess of the proﬁt, measured in strict dollars and cents.
As the proﬁt approximated the cost, there has been a reduction
of rates of postage. Many are yet alive who remember the old
letter rate of six cents and over, and very many who remember
the ﬁve-cent rate. Then came the uniform rate of three cents
for every two ounces, and in 188 3 the two-cent rate. It is very
probable that a one-cent rate will prevail before the end of the
century, for the system proves that cheapness of rate is more
than met by increased amount of matter mailed, especially in
populous communities. I '
A great stride was made in our postal system by act of May
8, 1794. But in 1829 the grand step was taken which made it
a separate system. Then the Post-Ofﬁce Department was de-
tached from the Treasury Department, and the Postmaster-Gen-
eral made responsible for its management. He became a mem-
ber of the Cabinet, and a direct adviser with the President.
DUTIES OF POSTMASTER—The general duties of the
Postmaster-General are to conduct the multiform and intricate
accounts of 'the postal. service; originate and distribute books,
blanks and forms; establish and discontinue post-ofﬁces; appoint
postmasters; negotiate postal treaties with foreign countries;
report to Congress annually the condition of his ofﬁce; execute
all laws relating to the postal service. He has more appoint-
ments than any other Department oﬂicial, and his responsibility
254 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
never ‘ceases till it reaches down into the very bosom of the
masses.
POS T -OFF[ DES—The machinery of the Department is
largely outside of it, and it works in every city, hamlet and far
corner of the land. The postal routes are established by law.
They are not always wisely laid down at ﬁrst, but time and the
drift of settlement generally cure all defects. The Department,
following the routes, establishes post-ofﬁces, appoints postmasters
and places the people in Contact with the service. All this is
fully in the hands of the Department. Postmasters receiving
over $1,000 salary must have their’ nominations conﬁrmed by
the Senate, and as a rule they are appointed by the President.
All minor appointments are made by the Postmaster-General
directly. Postmasters are graded, and paid accordingly.
OTHER FEA T URES.——The postal system has been very
growthy, and proliﬁc of many new features, all tending to make
it more convenient and safe. The sending of money in small
sums by mail was a constant invitationto robbery and led to
many losses. The attempt to secure greater safety by means of
a registry of letters did not amount to much. Then the money
order feature was introduced, by which money can be sent with
entire safety. Sums up to $50 can thus be sent from one Money
Order Ofﬁce, payable at another. There are now 6,500 of these
ofﬁccs, and the amount transmitted through them annually
aggregates several millions. They are the poor man’s bank,
through which he can send drafts to any part of this country
and to many foreign countries. The propriety of a postal-sav-
ing bank has often been mooted. But we are not yet quite far
enough on for such an advantageous feature.
The Postal Note feature was authorized in 1883. A deposit'
of less than $5 at any Money Order Ofﬁce will entitle one to a
note for the amount of his deposit less a‘ fee of three cents,
which he can use as money for 90 days, and which will be re-
deemed at any Money Order Ofﬁce on demand. It is a handy
note for transmission by letter.
The Letter Carrier feature is a modern one. It exists, or may
exist, in any city with a population of 20,000, or in which the
THE UNITED STATES. 2.55
post-ofﬁce yields $20,000 a year. In such cities carriers gather
and deliver the mail matter, to‘the great convenience of business
men.
The Railway Service is also a new feature. By law all navi-
gable waters of the United States, all canals and railroads, are
established postal routes, and the mails were carried thereon in
the ordinary pouches, the distribution being made at some
central ofﬁce. The Railway Service introduced on the Rail
routes a Postal car or cars, ofﬁcered by mail agents whose duty
it is to collect and distribute all the mail matter 'on that route.
It is a post-ofﬁce on wheels, and a very complete and popular
institution.
. POSTMASTERS-GENERAL.
Name. Appointed. Name. Appointed.
Samuel Osgood, Mass. . . .Sept. 26, 1789 Joseph Holt, Ky. . . . .Mar. 14, 1859
Timothy Pickering, Pa... .Aug. 12, 1791 Horatio King, Me... . . . . .Feb. 12, 1861
Joseph Haber-sham, Ga... .Feb. 25, 1795 Montgomery Blair, Md... Mar. 5, 1861
Gideon Granger, Conn... .Nov. 28, 1801 William Dennison, Ohio. .Sept. 24, 1864
Return Meigs, Jr., Ohio.Mar. 17, 1814 Alex. W. Randall, Wis... .July 25, 1866
John McLean, Ohio . . . . . .June 26, 1823 John A. J. Cresswell, Md..Mar. 5, 1869
William T. Barry, Ky . . .Mar. 9, 1829 Marshall Jewell, Conn.... .Aug. 24, 1874
Amos Kendall, Ky. . . . . . . May I, 1835 James N. Tyner, Ind... . . .July 12, 1876
John M. Niles, Conn... . . .May 25, 1840 David McK. Key, Tenn. .Mar. 12, 1877
Francis Granger, N. Y.... .Mar. 6, 1841 Horace Maynard, Tenn.. .June 2, 1880
Charles A. \Vickliffe, Ky..Sept. 13, 1841 Thomas L. James, N. Y. .Mar. 5, 1881
Cave Johnson, Tenn.... . . .Mar. 6, 1845 Timothy O. Howe, Wis.. .Dec. 20, 1881
Jacob Collamer, Ver . . . . ..Mar. 8, 1849 Walter Q. Gresham, Ind. April 3, 1883
Nathan K. Hall, N. .July 23, 1850 Frank Hatton,Ohio . . . . ..Oct. 14, 1884
Samuel D. Hubbard, Conn.Aug. 31, 1852 Wm. F. Vilas, Wis . . . . . ..Mar. 6, 1885
James Campbell, Pa . . . . . .Mar. 5, 1853 D. M. Dickinson, Mich.....Dec. 5, 1887

Aaron V. Brown, Tenn.. .Mar. 6, 1857
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
The presiding ofﬁcer of this Department is the Attorney-Gen-
eral, who is appointed by the President, and is a member of the
Cabinet.~ His salary is $8,000.
The act of 1789 authorizing an Attorney-General empowered
him to “ conduct all suits for the United States in the Supreme
Court, give his advice and opinion on questions of law when re-
quested by the President or heads of Departments.”
By act of 1861 he has charge of Attorneys and Marshals in
all the Judicial Districts in the United States and Territories.
He is not only legal adviser of the President and heads of De—
partmentshbut must examine all titles to lands for public build-
256 ' POLITICAL HISTORY OF
ings, forts, navy yards, etc. ; report to Congress the condition of
his ofﬁce; distribute U. S. statutes to the lower courts; designate
the places of conﬁnement for criminals under U. S. laws. He is
a useful and invaluable ofﬁcial in the executive branch of the
government, and ought to be well informed in both the law and
practice of the U. S. Courts. The position is highly honorable
and has been held by some of the brightest legal minds of the
country. '
ATTORNEYS-GENERAL.
Name. Appointed. Name. Appointed.
Edmund Randolph, Va.. .Sept. 26, 1789 Nathan Clifford, Me . . . . . .Oct. 17, 1846
William Bradford, Pa. . ..Jan. 27, 1794 Isaac Toucey, Conn . . . . . .June 21, 1848
Charles Lee, Va . . . . . . . . .Dec. 10, 1795 Reverdy Johnson, Md. . . .Mar. 8, 1849
Theophilus Parsons, Mass..Feb. 20, 1801 Jno. J. Crittenden, Ky. . . .July 22, 1850
Levi Lincoln, Mass. . . .Mar. 5, 1801 Caleb Cushing, Mass. . . . .Mar. 7, 18 5 3
Robert Smith, Md... . . . . .Mar. 3, 1805 Jeremiah S. Black, Pa. . . .Mar. 6, 18 57
John Breckinridge, Ky... .Aug. 7, 1805 Edwin M. Stanton, Pa.. . .Dec. 20, 1860
‘Caesar A. Rodney, Pa. . . .Jan. 28, 1807 Edward Bates, Mo . . . . ..Mar. 5, 1861
William Pinkney, Md. . . .Dec. 11, 1811 T. CoffeeIad. £12.), Pa...June 22, 1863
Richard Rush, Pa . . . . . . ..Feb. 10, 1814 James Speed, Ky . . . . . . . .Dec. 2, 1864
William Wirt, Va . . . . . . . .Nov. 13, 1817 Henry Stanbery, O . . . . . ..Jan. 23, 1866
John M. Berrien, Ga... . . .Mar. 9, 1829 William M. Evarts, N. Y..July 15, 1868
Roger B. Taney, Md.. . . .July 20, 1831 E. Rockwood Hoar, Mass.Mar. 5, 1869
Benj. F. Butler, N. Y.. . . .Nov. 15, 1833 Amos T. Akerman, Ga.. ..June 23, 1870
Felix Grundy, Tenn . . . . . .July 5, 1838 Geo. H. Williams, Oregon.Dec. 14, 1871
Henry D. Gilpin, Pa.. . . ..Jan. 11, 1840 Edwards Pierrepont, N. Y.Apri126, 1875
John J. Crittenden, Ky.. ..Mar. 5, 1841 Alphonso Taft, Ohio.. . . ..May 22, 1876
- Hugh S. Legaré, S. C. . . .Sept. 13, 1841 Charles Devens, Mass. . . . Mar. 12, 1877
John Nelson, Md . . . . . . . .July 1, 1843 Wayne McVeagh, Pa.. . . .Mar. 5, 1881
John Y. Mason, Va. . . .Mar. 6, 1845 Benj. H. Brewster, Pa.. . . .Dec. 19, I881
Augustus H. Garlandl, Ark., Mar. 6, 1885.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
The ofﬁcer in charge is the Commissioner of Agriculture-
The Agricultural Bureau was created in 1862, and only lately
erected into a separate Department. Its chief is not a Cabinet
ofﬁcer. The Department is designed to be the centre toward
which shall be attracted information respecting agriculture and
whence it shall ﬂow to all the people. It is further a Depart-
ment of experiments with agricultural products and industries
and a source of supply for new and rare seeds and plants. The
Commissioner is expected to correspond with scientists in all
countries, collect statistics bearing on agricultural subjects, pub-
lish such works as will best spread the information‘ he gathers,
investigate diseases of domestic animals, inquire into the nature

THE UNITED STATES. 257
and prevention of injury to crops by insects, worms, birds and
all enemies of plants and grains. Much is hoped of this youth-
ful Department. The propagating garden and museum attached
to it are already interesting.
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.
USES OF THE ~?’UDICIARl/.——The third co-ordinate de-
partment of the national government is the Judicial Department,
or The Judiciary. The existence of such a Department, or
branch of the government, with functions independent of and
separate from the legislative and executive branches, yet co-
ordinate with them, is indispensable to the safety of a free gov-
ernment. Wherever there is no judiciary to interpret, pronounce
and execute laws, two things must happen. Ist. Either the
government will perish through sheer weakness and confusion,
or, 2d, the judicial power will be absorbed by the other two
1 branches to the utter extinction of civil and political liberty.
Montesquieu has wisely said: “There is no liberty if the judi-
ciary be not separated from the legislative and executive power.”
And Judge Story says : “ In the national government the judicial
power is equally as important as in the States. The wantof it ,
was a vital defect in the Confederation. Without it the laws of
the Union would be perpetually in danger of being controverted
by the laws of the States. The national government would be
reduced to a servile dependence on the latter for the due execu-
tion of its powers, and we should have reacted over again the
same solemn mockery which began in the neglect and ended in
the ruin of the Confederation. Power without adequate means to
enforce it is like a body in a suspended state of animation. For
all practical purposes it is as if its faculties were extinguished.
A single State might under such circumstances, at its mere
pleasure, suspend the whole operations of the Union.”
The two grand uses of the Judiciary are (I) to execute the
powers of the government. In this it co-operates directly with
the Executive branch, while it acts independently of it. (2) Ii:
secures uniform and certain operation of those powers and of
the laws made under them. In this it co-operates with the Legis-
17
258 ’ POLITICAL HISTORY.
lative branch, helping it here and checking it there, making its
‘edicts certain in results, and assuring the people against the
oppression of unconstitutional enactments.
SUPREME COURT.—-“ The judicial power of the United
States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior
courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and estab-
lish. The judges of both the Supreme and inferior courts shall
hold their ofﬁces during good behavior, and shall at stated times
receive for their services a compensation which shall not be
diminished during their continuance in Ofﬁce.”——Art. IIL, Con.
' Thus the establishment of a Supreme Court is imperative.
The establishment of inferior courts is left to the discretion of
Congress. Congress has acted promptly in both instances.
Among its ﬁrst acts was one looking to the formation of the
Supreme Court, and subsequent acts passed in obedience to the
demands of legal business have contributed to the formation of
our present imposing judicial system.
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest tribu-
nal, or court of last resort, in. the nation. Its decisions settle
ﬁnally the law of the land. It has both original and appellate
jurisdiction. Its original jurisdiction extends to civil causes in
which a State is a party, which involve public ministers and
‘jmatters affecting the marine. Its appellate jurisdiction is general;
that is, it must hear all appeals from the Circuit and District
Courts. ‘
'It consists of a Chief justice and eight Associate justices.
The former receives $10,500, and the latter receive ‘$10,000 a
year. They are appointed by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate. Their appointment is for life
or good behavior, though by a recent enactment they may re-
tire at seventy years of age and still draw their pay, provided
they have held their Commissions for ten years.* They are thus
removed as far as possible from party inﬂuences. 8
The number of judges of the Supreme Court has not always
_, * Under this act three justices have already withdrawn, viz., Noah H. Swayne,
Ohio; William Strong, Pa.; and Ward Hunt, N. Y., their salary of $10,000 being
continued. '
STICE ROGER B. TANEY.
I I .l A
n .lu". ..ll!
I l\ //:..-W
a: a
CHIEF JU-
.. so“ \ KL.
\\
\

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL.
‘ 259,
260 POLITICAL HISTORY.
remained the same. At its ﬁrst session in 1790 it consisted of a
Chief Justice and ﬁve Associates. The Associates were increased
to six in 1807, to eight in 1837, to nine in 1863. In 1865 they
were decreased to eight, and in 1867 to seven, but were increased
to eight in 1870.’
The‘ Supreme Court must hold one regular term a year, Com-
mencing on the second Monday in October, and such special
terms as is necessary. Its regular sessions are always at the
Capitol.
CHIEF JUSTICES OF UNITED STATES, SUPREME COURT.

Term of service. _ Term of service,
John Jay, N. Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1789-95 Roger B. Taney, Md . . . . . . . . 1836-64
John Rutledge, S. C . . . . . . . . 1795-95 Salmon P. Chase, O . . . . . . . ..1864-73
Oliver Ellsworth, Conn.. . . ...1796—1800 Morrison R. Waite, O . . . . . . .1873-88
John Marshall, Va . . . . . . . . . . 1801-35 Melville W. Fuller, [ll . . . . . . 1888-. .
ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
Term of service. Term of service.
John Rutledge, S. C . . . . . . . . . 1789-91 John Catron, Tenn . . . . . . . . .1837-65
William Cushing, Mass . . . . . . 1789-1810 John McKinley, Ala . . . . . . . . 1837-52
James Wilson, Pa . . . . . . . . . . .1789-98 Peter V. Daniel, Va . . . . . . . . .1841-60
John Blair, Va . . . . . . . . ,. . . . 1789-96 Samuel Nelson, N. Y . . . . . . . 1845-72
Robert H. Harrison, Md.. . . . 1789-90 Levi Woodbury, N. H . . . . . 1845-51
James Iredell, N. C . . . . . . . . . 1790-99 Robert C. Grier, Pa . . . . . . . . .1846-69
Thomas Johnson, Md.. . . . 1791-93 Benjamin R. Curtis, Mass. . . . 1851-57
William Patterson, N. . . . . .1793-1806 John A. Campbell, Ala . . . . . . 1853-61
Samuel Chase, Md.. . . . . ..1796-181 1 Nathan Clifford, Me . . . . . . . . . 1858-81
Bushrod Washington, Va. . . . 1798-1829 Noah H. Swayne, O . . . . . . . . 1861-81
Alfred Moore, N. C . . . . . . . ..1799—1804 Samuel F. Miller, Iowa.. . I862-. .
William Johnson, S. C . . . . . . 1804-34 David Davis, Ill.. . . . . .1862—77
Brockholst Livingston, N. Y. . 1806-23 Stephen J. Field, Cal.. .. . . . . 1863-. .
Thomas Todd, Ky . . . . . . . . . . 1807-26 William M. Strong, Pa . . . . . . 1870-80
Joseph Story, .VIass. . . . . ..1811-45 Joseph P. Bradley, N. J.. .1870-. .
Gabriel Duval, Md . . . . . . . . . . 181 1-36 \Vard Hunt, NQY . . . . . . . . . . . 1872-82
Smith Thompson, N. Y.. . .1823-43 John M. Harlan, Ky . . . . . . . 1877-. .
Robert Trimble, Ky . . . . . . . . . 1826-28 William B. Woods, Ga . . . . . . 1880-87
John McLean, O . . . . . . . . . . . 1829-61 Stanley Matthews, O . . . . . . . .1881-. .
Henry Baldwin, Pa . . . . . . . . . 1830-46 Horace Gray, Mass. . . . . .1881-. .
James M. Wayne, Ga. . . . . 1835-67- Samuel Blatchford, N. Y. . . .1882-. .
Philip P. Barbour, Va . . . . . . . 1836-41 Lucius Q. C. Lamar, Miss. ...1888-. .
CIRCUIT COURTS—An important part of the U. S. Judi-
ciary, and second to the Supreme Court, are the Circuit Courts.
There are nine of these Courts now, or rather nine Judicial Cir--
cuits or Districts,* say one for each Judge of the Supreme Court.
* Care must be taken not to confound the Circuit with the District. There are
nine Circuit Districts, each composed of a number of minor Districts, no one of
which can be smaller than a State.
/
/

CHIEF JUSTICE SALMON I’.

CHIEF JUSTICE M. R. WAITE. Clll JUSTlCE M. W. FULLER.
261
262 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
In order to facilitate the work of the Supreme Court, the entire
country is thus divided into these nine judicial Circuits or Dis-
tricts, and a-judge of the Supreme Court is assigned to each
District, which he is expected to visit at least once in two years.
He is thus said to make his circuit; whence the name, Circuit
Court. The Chief justice of the Supreme Court takes his cir-
cuit with the rest. The Circuit for the respective judges is
determined by allotment. Though this Supreme Court judge is
really the presiding ofﬁcer in each Circuit Court, it is easy to see
that such Court must be closed a great part of the time if
its operation depended on his presence. The Supreme Court
judges are busy most of the year with their session at the Cap-
ital. Even when on a circuit made up of several States, they
must with difﬁculty hold a court in each State, which they are
required to do. There is, therefore, appointed for each of the
Circuits a permanent Circuit judge, who holds the Sessions of
the Circuit Courts, and who is visited by the allotted Supreme
Court judge, and assisted by him when he appears. Each of
these Circuit judges receives a salary of $6,000 a year. They
are appointed by the President by and with the advice and con-
sent of the Senate. 4
These Circuit Courts being minor courts are not courts of
ﬁnal resort. They are, however, appellate Courts for many pur-
poses, appeals being taken to them from the District Courts, as
we shall see. They have original jurisdiction of a class of causes
denied to the District Courts, but for the most part have con-
current jurisdiction with the latter. The Circuits are numbered
from one to nine, and are sometimes familiarly spoken of as
justice So-and-So’s Circuit, after the name of the justice allotted
to it. '
The First judicial Circuit embraces the districts of Maine,
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.
The Second judicial Circuit embraces the districts of Ver-
mont, Connecticut, and NewYork. I
The Third judicial Circuit embraces the districts of New
jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. I '
The Fourth judicial Circuit embraces'the districts of Mary-
land, West'Virginia, Virginia, North and South Carolina.
THE UNITED STATES. 263
The Fifth Judicial Circuit embraces the districts of Georgia,
' Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.
The Sixth Judicial Circuit embraces the districts of Ohio,
Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee.
The Seventh Judicial Circuit embraces the districts of Indiana,
Illinois, and Wisconsin.
The Eighth Judicial Circuit embraces the districts of Min-
nesota, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas, Colorado, and Ne-
braska.
The Ninth Judicial Circuit embraces the districts of California,
Oregon, and Nevada.
Appeals from the Circuit Courts are direct to the Supreme
Court. An act of March 3, 1875, gave the Circuit Courts con-
current jurisdiction with State Courts in a large number of cases
arising under the Constitution and treaties of the United States,
and likewise concurrent jurisdiction with the District Courts.
DISTRICT C0 URTS—In order to further facilitate judicial
work and give greater convenience to the people, the National
Judiciary is again divided into a lower grade of Courts, called
District Courts. Perhaps it would be better to say the country
is divided into a number of judicial districts, in each of which is
a District Court presided over by a District Judge. Twenty-two.
of the States are each a Judicial District. The others are divided
into two and three Judicial Districts, according to population and
the amount of business transacted. The salaries of the District
Judges range from $5,000 to $3,500. They are a more popular
court than the Circuit Court, because closer to the people, and
as we have seen, their jurisdiction is nearly the same; the same,
in fact, where there is no Circuit Court; and indeed, a District
Judge, or two of them sitting together, may hold a Circuit Court.
There are now ﬁfty-nine Judicial Districts (there must be at least
one in each State), and the same number of District Courts and
Judges, District Attorneys, District Clerks and Marshals. All
of these ofﬁcers are appointed by the President and Senate,
except the clerks, who are chosen by the courts. The District
Attorneys prosecute all delinquents for crimes under United
States laws, and all civil causes in which the government is con-
264 POLITICAL HISTORY. -
cerned. Thev U. S. Marshal has a function analogous to that of
the County Sheriff. "
COURT OF CLAIMS—This Court was created as late as
18 55, and given enlarged power and increased force in 1863. It
may be properly classed as a part of the Judicial System of the
United States, for appeals are had from it to the Supreme Court,
where the amount involved exceeds $3,000. It was created as a
relief to both Congress and the Courts, and has jurisdiction of a
class of cases founded on laws of Congress, contracts with the
United States, or on claims against the government, where the
amount rather than the fact is in dispute, and where ﬁnal relief
is to be had through an appropriation by the Congress. It has
proved a convenient court, because it works more expeditiously
than a Congressional investigation, and lifts a great number of
cases above partisan level. It tries cases for and against the
United States, and in general all matters referred to it by Con-
gress. Its decisions when favorable to the claimant are reported
to Congress, and the necessary appropriation follows. Its powers
and rules of procedure are now akin to those of other courts,
but proceedings therein are begun by petition, as if the applica-
tion were made direct to Congress. Its ofﬁcers are a Chief
Justice and‘four Judges, whose salaries are $4,500 each.
SUPREME COURT, D. C.——This important court is a nec-
essary part of the Judiciary of the United States, the District of
Columbia being under a government provided by Congress. It
is composed of a Chief Justice and four associates, the former at
a salary of $4,500, the latter at $4,000 each. It possesses the
same jurisdiction as a Circuit Court. Any one of its Justices
may hold a special term, and when doing so his court ranks as
a District Court of the United States. It is also a Criminal
- Court for the trial of offences in the District.
DISTRICT A T T ORNE YS-—The Attorney-General. of the
United States, appointed by the President, and ranking as a
Member of the Cabinet, is, in common speech, the District At-
torney for the Supreme Court. He is the prosecuting ofﬁcer of
that court. So the District Attorneys, appointed in the same
way as the Attorney-General, but in and for their respective dis-


\ . t
.\ \\ ..
r
a \
SHAWNEE . .
\
\-
_ . RisesAmmo.. \ .. \\\\.\
\
\\
.\
v. .
. Paul.
\w
\.
\. \\\\ .
issss ..
\\ \ \a. \..\ \ \ \\~
. . . w . . ...u.
c 1 ‘Pa.
.. _ \. ~‘ ‘\ .. ..\
... ...r ..
s I. 1 71, .
.
.\
I
§ .
S
E

\
\\\ .
....\......\w vex. \
\i . \ ............\H.\...\.\ \ . \\\\\..Mm®. \ H / . . . . t \.\.M\ é . . \\\\\\\\\. s s. \\
.\\\\\\\.\\..\..\ .
\\\\\
JUDGE JOSEPH STORY IN JUDICIAL ROBE.
265
266 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
tricts, are. the prosecuting attorneys of the District Courts. As
a general thing there is a District Attorney for each District
Court, though in one or two States which contain two or more
Districts there is only one District Attorney. He is the attorney
for the United States, just as the District Attorney in any county
of a State is the attorney for the Commonwealth. His duty is
to prosecute in his District all crimes cognizable under the laws
of the United States, and all civil actions in which the govern-
ment is concerned. '
U. S. MARSHALS.—-As. already indicated these ofﬁcers are
attached to every District Court, and their function is similar
to an ordinary County Sheriff. They serve the processes of the
court, and execute its judgments and decrees. They are equally
the ofﬁcers of the Circuit Courts.
7UR]ES.-—_The machinery of the Judiciary would be very
imperfect without mention of the two kinds of juries in use.
They are required by the Constitution, see Art. V. of the
amendments. The Grand jury is organized, like that in the
judicial districts of the States, and has the same powers
and duties. It is that part of the judicial system which ﬁrst
‘inquires into a charge of crime brought against a citizen, and no
indictment for such crime can be presented to the court unless a
majority of said jury certify that there are good reasons for be-
lieving that the charge is well founded. It is the body of citizens
which stands between a criminal and all petty, spiteful and illy-
founded charges, and protects him from the annoyance and ex-
pense of trials without probable cause. When the Grand jury
is called by a Circuit Court it must inquire into all the crimes
against the laws of the United States in that Circuit ; when
called by a District Court, its inquiries extend only to the District.
The Petit (small) jury has the same uses and powers as in the
County Courts. It is called by a judge of the District or Circuit
Court, on subpoena, is composed of a panel of forty-eight men,
from which the usual twelve are selected for the trial of a cause.
A Grand jury acts only in criminal cases; both civil and criminal,
cases are tried before a Petit jury. The ﬁnding of a Grand
jury is called a presentment or indz'cz‘meni—a presentment when it
THE UNITED STATES. 267
acts from knowledge within itself, an indictment when it acts on
knowledge derived from the District Attorney, or other person.
The‘ ﬁnding of a Petit Jury is called a verdict. The Grand Jury
deliberates alone, the Petit Jury hears the evidence as presented
in court, the pleas of the attorneys and the charge of the judges
before it retires to deliberate. These remarks apply to Grand
and Petit Juries in United States as well as State Courts.
ADMIRALTY C0 UK T S—In remote times, when judicial
systems were narrow, there arose a set of courts separate from
those of common law, called Admiralty and Maritime Courts.
They have separate existence yet in many countries, but here’
Admiralty and Maritime causes are heard in the District Courts
of the United States, which are thus said to have Admiralty and
Maritime jurisdiction. There would be little use in keeping up
this distinction but for the fact that the laws of Admiralty, which
are laws respecting ships of war and warlike operations at sea,
and Maritime laws, which are those respecting vessels engaged
in commerce, are different from those relating to land affairs, and
are a code in themselves, thus requiring, if not a separate set of
courts and udges, at least a class of attorneys specially learned
in Admiralty and Maritime matters. Cases within Admiralty
and Maritime jurisdiction are not necessarily limited to those
arising on the sea, but embrace those arising on the lakes and
navigable rivers of the country.
-GOVERNMENT OF THE TERRITORIES.
Congress provides a government for the Territories. Its form
has become stereotyped, and it is in general a miniature of that
enjoyed by the States. It recognizes the usual division of power
into'three branches, Executive, Legislative and Judicial.
The Executive power is in a Governor, appointed by the
President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for
four ‘years. His powers are akin to those of the State Govern-
ors. _He must reside in his Territory, is commander of the
militia, may grant pardons and reprieves, commission ofﬁcers,
and in general must execute the laws. He has a Secretary,
appointed for four years, who may act as Governor in case of a‘
268 POLITICAL HISTORY.
vacancy. The salary of a Governor is $2,600 and of a Secretary
$1,800. '
The Legislative power is vested in a Legislative Assembly,
Composed of a Council and House of Representatives. The
former is limited to twelve members and the latter to twenty-four.
They are elected by the qualiﬁed voters of the Territory for two
years. Sessions of the Assemblies are biennial, and limited to
sixty days. Laws passed by both Houses and signed by the
Governor are sent to Congress and if approved are operative, if
not, null and void.* The Legislative power of a Territory is
_necessarily limited to subjects permitted by Congress. Every
Territory has the right to send a Delegate to the House of Rep-
resentatives of the United States, with power to speak but not
to vote.
The Judicial power of a Territory is in a Supreme Court,
District Courts, Probate Courts and Justices of the Peace. Pro-
bates and Justices of the Peace are provided for by the Territory
itself. The Supreme Court is composed of three judges (Dakota
has four) appointed by the President and Senate. They hold one
term annually. Then each Territory is divided into three
Judicial districts, one for each Judge of the Supreme Court. The
judge assigned to a district must hold court therein as Often as
the laws prescribe, and he must reside in his‘ district after
assignment. There is a United States Marshal and a District
Attorney in each Territory, and each court is entitled to a
clerk and minor officers. The salary of Territorial judges is
$3,000-
‘All of the above is true of the Territories proper, but not of
the Indian Country nor the District of Columbia.
The government of the Indian Country is hardly describable. _
It is of course a dependency of the United States, but the
design is that it shall be as independent as possible. The tribes
have been assigned land, and left to regulate their internal affairs
according to their own laws and customs, of course with the
hope that as they grow civilized they will become full-ﬂedged
* Dakota, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming need not send their laws to Congress
for approval.


m
M“ .:_


_ _ _._5_='S____:‘
_ .___.=________
.3 a :__m
Mm‘—
MM


ll 5;
mi
It,I
'!
lf iiz'i I“ l‘ i
I’ I .
lllllll ‘ll
"lmllill
It “@r’
~Trill l1 I
_ w‘. I I‘ i N -"" .. e " A"? ‘
. - p, ,h _: , ._
' h . I. ‘f I l- _ :TI T
w ‘
‘l


_; Q1,-
, 7.
~' , '--_
n P‘ ‘


I


‘f'. ,/ I f‘ \,
___ . '2 _,-','-"/
-- ._= ‘ .dgégc‘zf; ‘
==_-- .; ‘ ’
_ . ..___


THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT.
270 ' - ' _PO-LITICAL HISTORY.
citizens, with institutions which will readily take the laws and
' customs of the nation. Crimes against the Indians by whites,
and against whites by the Indians of this Territory, are taken
cognizance of by the United States Courts inv some of the
adjoining districts. The government would protect the Indian
Country against invasion, and the inhabitants thereof against
such tumult as they could not control, but the theory connected
‘with this magniﬁcent reservation is that the inhabitants shall be
,let alone to work out their social, political, industrial and moral
problems in their own way, or with such help as they choose to
invite.
The District of Columbia is governed by a Commission of
three persons appointed by the President and Senate, one of
_“whom must be an ofﬁcer of the Engineer Corps, above the rank
of Captain. ‘He receives no additional pay. The other two,
‘appointed for three years, from civil life, receive each $5,000 a
year. They have no powers except those conferred by Congress,
‘and they are simply the Agents of Congress to suggest laws
and execute those which are enacted. ' They control streets,
bridges,‘ aqueducts, sewers,‘ appoint the trustees of public
schools, regulate the maintenance of prisons, hospitals and re-
formatory institutions, ‘and do all that usually belongs to a corps
of municipal regulators. They estimate for all municipal ex-
penditures, and if their estimates are approved by the Secretary
of the Treasury and by Congress, the Congress appropriates one
half of the amount and leaves the Commissioners to provide the
balance by taxation of the property in the district. As we have
passed along in our history of government machinery we have
struck other ofﬁces connected ,with the District of Columbia,
appointed by the President, giving to it a diversiﬁed but very
complete government. ' '
A PRACTICAL VIEW OF NATIONAL POLITICS;
ALL THE PRESIDENTS AND ADMINISTRATIONS; THE
. CONGRESSES AND PARTY MEASURES 5 RISE AND'FALL
OF POLITICAL PARTIES; NATIONAL ELECTIONS AND
PARTY PLATFORMS.
ARTIES IN GENERAL—Party names do not always
afford an index to party principles or professions. In
this respect they are unfortunate. “Whig” was origi-
nally a term of reproach, and “ Democrat” and
“Jacobin” were mere epithets previous to 1825. So
far as the names give a cue to principles there ought to be no
difference between the existing “ Republican ” and “ Democratic ”
parties. In such names as “ Federal,” “Anti-Federal,” “ Native-
American,” etc., one is provided with a key to the principles pro-
fessed.
Under our institutions issues are so transitory that parties
are short-lived. Or if they retain their names a great while, they
frequently cross their principles and change their professions.
They are also often the victims of a seemingly inevitable drift,
by which they get very far away from the intent of their founders,
and so lose sight of original principles as to leave nothing but
the party name as a rallying cry. Some of our best and purest
parties, in the beginning, have moved illogically along in wider
and - wider departure from their ﬁrst intent, until they either
ruined themselves or brought trouble to the country. In such
instances party is lost in partyism, and blind adherence to a ban-
ner is mistaken for intelligent devotion to principle.
USES OF PART [ES—As embodiments of ignorance, preju-
dice, passion, as a means of holding unthinking crowds, and
wielding arbitrary, brutal power, parties are dangerous, even in
a Republic. But as schools of thought, as orders representing
271
272 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
some vital principle, as a means of giving emphatic expression
to some popular and useful wish, they are proper and necessary.
Candid study of our institutions must impress one with the fact
that in general the existence of political parties has been timely,
and their effect wholesome. Each has answered a purpose,
which, even if not presently needful or apparently good, has
nevertheless served as a check on its opponents or as a stimulus
to higher notions of activity. However much party principles
may ~ have ebbed and ﬂowed, however far toward fanaticism,
sectionalism and intrigue, certain minds, and orders of mind,
may have drifted, it cannot. be said that the spirit of liberty has
suffered, or that respect for our institutions has been undermined,
but that, on the contrary, the former is keener and the latter
broader and deeper. Yet it is always well to remember Wash-
ington’s words, “ that from the natural tendency of governments
of a popular character, it is certain there will always be enough
of party spirit for salutary purposes. And there being constant
,danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public
opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A ﬁre not to be quenched,
it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into ﬂame,
lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”
PRIMI T I VE PAR T IES.-—The Colonial period developed no
parties as we now know them. The Colonies were disjointed
governments, therefore there could be no national party. But
there was always a sentiment against the right claimed by Par-
liament to legislate for them. This sentiment grew warmer after
the English revolution of 1688, which greatly strengthened the
hands of Parliament and emboldened its assumptions. But it
did not really crys‘talize in the Colonies till after the treaty of
1763, by which Great Britain secured Canada and the Mississippi
valley from France. Then it became a British policy to make
the Colonies pay a part of the expenses of the war.* This policy
brought that long list of burdens, such‘ as customs dues, export
taxes, excises, Tea Acts, Stamp Acts, etc., against which the
*An excessive part of the expenses, for the English idea was that they should
pay all they could be compelled to, inasmuch as the territory secured enured to
their beneﬁt.
THE UNITED STATES. 273
Colonies unitedly remonstrated, not more because they were
burdens, than because submission to them involved a surrender
of the point that Parliament had no right to tax America with-
out her consent. The respective Tory ministries in England
‘ favored Parliament. The Whigs (when out) favored the Colon-
ists, or, at least, non-interference. Colonial thought, shaped on
these lines, took these party expressions. As the Colonial Whigs
grew warm in their opposition to Parliament, and the idea of
union and independence advanced, “ Whig” and “Tory” became
as familiar in America as in England, and the sentiment repre-
sented by each as bitter. The Whig, who was at ﬁrst only an
opponent of Parliamentary claims, got to be a Colonial unionist,
without separation from the mother country, then a unionist,
with separation. The Tory remained the fast friend of English
sovereignty on our soil, in whatever shape the powers at home
chose to present it.
- PARTIES OF THE RE VOLUT ION.—F rom the above at-
titude of parties one can readily see that after the fact of Inde-
pendence (1776) the Tory party was without a mission. If a
party at all, its sentiment was silenced amid arms. The Whig
idea was uppermost and overwhelming. It meant vastly more
than in the beginning. The Whigs were the revolutionary,
armed party. They were the government, such as it was—the
Congress ﬁrst, and then the Confederation. The Tories were
enemies, traitors if you please. Indeed, the term Whig began
to mean so much that other words, comprehending more, came
into use, as “ Popular Party," “ Party of Independence,” “ Amer-
ican Party,” “Liberty Party,” “Patriots,” and so on. This was
the party situation from 1774 to 1778, in the Continental Con-
gress and in the Colonial Legislatures.
PARTIES OF THE C ONFEDERA T I ON.—-The event of
the Confederation was forced by the Whigs. Their party name‘
followed. The Articles of Confederation were a decisive advance
of the federal idea, but as a government they were inﬁnitely
weaker than the arbitrary, revolutionary Congress. We have
already seen their sources of weakness, how they fell into dis~
respect at home and abroad, why it became necessary to sub-
' 18
274 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
stitute for them “a more perfect union.” The Whig party
dominated the Confederation. Less than ever was there a Tory
party. Toryism invited conﬁscation, proscription, banishment.
PAR T [ES OF THE C 0N5 T [ T U T [ ON—With the peace
_ of 1783, the Tory cause perished outright. Therefore there was
no longer any need for the term Whig. The prevalent thought
was the national one—how to unite more ﬁrmly, and for peace
as well as war? This was F ederalism—the permanent one out
of the disjointed many idea. The weaknesses of the Confedera-
tion forced this thought along like a torrent, ripened it until it
became the Constitution of the United States. Strictly speak-
ing, there were no more two parties from I 783 to 1787, than
from I 774 to I 783. Whigism became Federalism, and Whigs
F ederalists, and the thought of “ a more perfect union ” was as
paramount as the thought of Independence, Union under a Con-
gress or the Articles, and the victory of the Revolution. But it
was a time of peace, and Federalism was a widely varying
theme. It took all sorts of shapes in conventions, village groups
and around the hearthstone. When it brought the convention
which framed the Constitution, it was variant there. Debate
took very wide range. Antagonisms were pointed and bitter.
And debates in the State Conventions over the question of rati~
ﬁcation took still wider range. But in all these contentions the
central thought was not lost sight of. Federalism, however col-
ored or twisted, was still the aim. Starting away up among
the few monarchy men of the convention, or of the States, and
travelling down through the various orders of thought clear to
the very‘ few who repudiated union on any conditions, we ﬁnd
Federalism the regnant idea and crowning hope. All differences
were as to form, time, construction, etc., not as to fact or neces-
sity. The party of Federalism, that is, the Federal party, became
the party of a new and stronger government, of the Constitution,
just as the Whig party had been the party of Independence and
the Continental Congress. ,
“ The Republicans are the nation,” said jefferson in the ﬂush
of political triumph. The Federals were the nation. Their con-
ciliations and compromises in convention secured a Constitution.
THE UNITED STATES. 275
Their concessions, surrenders and appeals secured its ratiﬁcation,
speedily here, tardily there, reservedly in many instances, fully
in others. We therefore regard the_common division of the
parties of this time into Federal and Anti-Federal as not exact
and somewhat misleading. There was no national Anti-Federal
party,* certainly no national sentiment worthy the name of Anti-
Federalism. The opposition to the Constitution which sprang
up in the State ratifying conventions was not even unreservedly
Anti-Federal. It was a strange, incalculable sentiment, born of
fears, and visions, and hypotheses, and constructions, and was as
much indulged by men like Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams
who had all along been Federalists of the most pronounced type,
as‘by those who thought the “ secretly deliberating convention”
could only hatch a scheme of monarchy. Nor was it a ﬁnal
sentiment, for many Anti-Federalists voted to ratify. It was not
a coherent sentiment, for some opposed because the promised
union would not be strong enough, some because it would be too
strong, some because the States would suffer, some because a
State government was at all times sufﬁcient, and so on. Anti-
Federalists were united in nothing save their opposition. When
the work of ratiﬁcation was completed and the government came
to be started, Anti-Federalism was not heard of. In the presence
of the fact of a Constitution it either agreed to suspend judg-
ment while the new experiment was being tried or engaged to
help the trial on.
*All the members of the Convention signed the Constitution except Edmund
Randolph and George Mason, of Virginia, and Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts,
and they were believers in Federalism, z’. e., the necessity for a stronger union, but
they did not think the Constitution was the best means to secure it. On signing,
Franklin said: ‘_‘I confess there are several parts of this Constitution I do not at
present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them.” And Hamilton,
on moving that all the members sign the instrument, said : “ No man’s ideas were
more remote from the plan than his own were known to be, but is it possible to
deliberate between anarchy and convulsion on one side and the chance of good to
be expected from the plan on the other? ” In the letter which Washington sent out
with the Constitution he says: “ In all our deliberations we have kept steadily in
view that which appears the greatest interest of every American—the consolidation
of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps national
existence.” '
276 POLITICAL ‘HISTORY OF
NEW GOVERNMENT PART IES.——So general was the
refusal of' the Anti-Federals to adopt a deﬁnite line of action
after the Constitution had been ratiﬁed by the necessary number
of States (nine), and such was their acquiescence in the popular
wish to see the new government fairly tried, that all animosities
ceased, and all open opposition was hushed, while the nation
bowed before the popularity of Washington, and unanimously
chose him for its ﬁrst President. I This signal mark of conﬁdence,
and this supreme triumph of Federalism was to end most happily
for the country. The passions of the hour would have time to
cool. Though Washington was a recognized Federalist, he was
not extreme, and all could depend on his judgment to start the
machinery on the broadest and safest basis. Extremists and
radicals of every type could afford to bide their time. And they
did, harmlessly but not inactively. It was a period for new
schools of thought, or rather for bringing to bear on the new
order of things old thoughts in stronger and better formulated
shape. Federalism, which was afﬁrmative, and Federals who
were responsible for the new government, naturally inclined to
such a construction of the Constitution, where points were
doubtful, as would throw the doubts in favor of the central
authority. Anti-Federalism, which was negative, and Anti-
Federals, even though they were supporters of the administra-
tion, naturally inclined to such a Construction, as would throw
the doubts in favor of the States. Thus the operative, dominant
Federalism of the day took the form of liberal or open con-
struction of the Constitution, would interpret it as though it had
a spirit as well as a letter, saw in a government under it an entity
with powers and functions to be questioned only by the people
at large. So the Anti-Federalism of the day took the form of a
strict or close construction of the Constitution, would interpret
it as though it were a simple, inelastic code, saw in a govern-
ment under it nothing more than that aggregate of power and
function which the sovereign States had parted with, and which
they were at liberty to question, or if need be recall. While
these two schools of thought did not immediately branch into
organized and opposing parties, they furnished the ground-
THE UNITED STATES. 277
work for nearly all subsequent and legitimate national party
differences.* A few years of experiment with the new govern-
ment brought up many questions which deeply engaged the
respective schools and gradually led to the ﬁrst organized
antagonism to the Federal party, which became known as the
Democratic-Republican party, or better as the Republican
party. But of this in its place.
I.
WASHINGTON’S FIRST ADMINISTRATION.
April 29, I 789—March 3, I 793.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, VA., President. JOHN ADAMS, MAss.,
Vz'ee-Presz'denz. SEAT 0F GOVERNMENT AT NEW YoRK AND
PHILADELPHIA. '
Congresses. Sesssz'ons.
I, April 6, 1789-September 29,1789, appointed session.
FIRST CONGRESS. 2, January 4, 1790—August 12, 1790.
3, December 6, 1790—March 3, 1791.
I, October 24, I791-May 8, 1792.
\Vashington was nominated by a Caucus of the Continental
Congress. The State Legislatures chose electors for President
and Vice-President on the ﬁrst Wednesday of January, 1789.1
These electors voted on the ﬁrst Wednesday in February.
*To the former or liberal school of construction belonged the Federal party,
which may be called its founder. To the same school belonged the Whig party,
which asserted that internal improvement at the national expense was within the
purview of the Constitution, as well as protective duties and a general banking
system. And so of the modern Republican party which claims for the central
government all power necessary for its preservation and advancement. To the lat-
ter, or strict school of construction, belonged the old Republican party and its
successor, the Democratic party. But all this is in general, for many times the re-
spective parties have occupied common ground or crossed each other’s tracks, only
to back away again to their old places when motives of expediency ceased to oper~
ate, and there was no rallying point short of the old differences.
1- The electors were chosen by the State Legislatures up till 1824. Under the
Constitution as it stood up till 1804, they voted for two persons, the one having the
highest number of votes to be President, the next highest to be Vice-President.
But they could not both be from the same State.
278 POLITICAL H ISTORY. ..
ELECTORAL VOTE.
Basis George
of Washing- john
States. 30,000. Votes. Party. ton. Adams.
New Hampshire. . . 3 5 . 5 5
Massachusetts... . . .. 8 10 +2‘ IO 10
Rhode Island . . . . . . I 3 8, . . Had not yet ratiﬁed
7, the Constitution.
Connecticut . . . . . . . . 5 7 3'3 7 5
New York.. . . . . . 6 8 I’, . . . . Had not yet passed an
L“ electoral law.
New jersey . . . . . . 4 6 ,3 '6 1
Pennsylvania . . . . . .. 8 IO ‘5 IO 8
Delaware . . . . . . . . . . I 3 E 3 . .
Maryland . . . . . . . . . . 6 8 .g 6 _ . . Two vacancies.
Virginia... . . . . . . .10 12 '5; IO “ “
North Carolina. . . .. 5 7 g. . Had not yet ratiﬁed
g‘ the Constitution.
South Carolina. . . . . 5 7 o 7
Georgia,...........3 5 Z 5 Totals . . . . . . . . .65 91 . . 69 34*
Though March 4, I 789, had been ﬁxed as the time for start-
ing the new government, it was not until April 6 that a quorum
of Congress was present. Their ﬁrst business was to count and
publish the Electoral votes as above. The candidates, being
duly notiﬁed of their election, went to the seat of government.
Adams arrived ﬁrst and took his place as presiding ofﬁcer of the
Senate. Washington was sworn into ofﬁce by Chancellor Liv-
ingstone on April 29, 1789.
T HE CABINETT—Washington chose a Cabinet with due
regard to the sentiment of the day. As to ability it was unques-
tioned.
* Of the votes cast for other candidates, and usually recorded as scattering, john
jay received 9; R. H. Harrison, 6; john Rutledge, 6; john Hancock, 4; George
Clinton, 3; Samuel Huntington, 2; john Milton, 2; Benjamin Lincoln, 1; james
Armstrong, 1; Edward Telfair, I.
j- The choice of a Cabinet was not an immediate step, for Congress had‘ not yet
passed laws organizing the respective Departments. The State Department was
organized by act of Sept. 15, 1789, and jeﬁ‘erson’s appointment dates from Sept.
26. The Treasury Department by act of Sept. 2, 1789, and Hamilton’s appoint-
ment dates from Sept. 11. The War Department by act of Aug. 7, 1789, and
Knox’s appointment dates-from Sept. 12. The Attorney-General by act of Sept,
24, 1789, and Randolph’s appointment dates from Sept. 26. The Navy Depart~
ment was not separately organized till April 30, 1798, nor the Post~Ofﬁce Depart-
ment till 1829. The latter was conducted till that time by the Treasury Depart»
ment.

in;
279
PRESIDENTS FROM 1789 TO 1817.
280 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
Secretary of State . . . . . . . . . .Thomas Jefferson, Va . . . . . . . .Moderate Anti-Federal.
Secretary of Treasury. . . . . . .Alexander Hamilton, N. Y.. . .Federal.
Secretary of War . . . . . . . . . . .Henry Knox, Mass . . . . . . . . . . “
Attorney-GeneraL- . . . . . . . . .Edmund Randolph, Va . . . . . . .Anti-Federal.
Chief Justice Supreme Court.John Jay, N. Y. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .Federal. _
CONGRESS IN EXTRA SESSION—The House organ-
ized by electing Frederick A. Muhlenberg, of Pennsylvania,
Speaker. This election had no political signiﬁcance. All were
content to allow the work of organization to move on the plane
of Federalism; or rather there had been no comparison of ideas,
and consequently no effort to organize opposition to Federal
supremacy. The session lasted for nearly six months, or till
Sept. 29, I 789. The work related to the preparation of machinery
and starting the wheels of the new government. The number
of measures necessary, and their novelty, invited able and pro-
tracted discussions. In range and character they were not un-
like those of the period preceding the adoption of the Constitu-
tution, and they foreshadowed those permanent differences of
interpretation which might readily, and properly too, afford a
basis for party existence. I
AMENDMEN T S.——So many States had ratiﬁed the Constitu-
tion with the hope of early amendment, and two, Rhode Island
and North Carolina, held so stubbornly off, that the Congress
took early steps toward remedying the defects of the instrument.
Twelve amendments were agreed upon (Sept. 2 5, 1789) and sub-
mitted for ratiﬁcation. Ten of these became a part of the Con-
stitution, Dec. 15, 1791. They referred to freedom of religion,
speech, person and property. Though intended to overcome
the objections of the States and to make more secure the rights
of the citizens, strange to say they invited bitter opposition from
the extreme anti-Federal element, which regarded them as de-
_ ceptive, and calculated to lure the States and people into false
expectations of national unity and strength.
COMMERCE AND T ARIFF—Bills for the regulation of
Commerce and the adjustment of a Tariff were fully considered
and passed. The Tariff act was generally acquiesced in, so far
as it provided a means of raising revenue by indirect taxation.
But when it was suggested that such an act could also, and
THE UNITED STATES. 281
should, be made a means of protection, the strict constructionists
decried it as unconstitutional. However, some of the extreme
anti-Federals sought to make the measure discriminate against
England, by favoring the products of other nations. A Tariff
bill was ﬁnally passed July 4, 1789, against strong opposition.
Though it imposed a very low rate of duty, it was nevertheless.
digniﬁed in the preamble as an “ act for the encouragement and
protection of manufactures.” Thus as to one of the objects of a
Tariff, and in the character of opposition it met with, there were
foreshadowed, at the very beginning of our government, the
spirited and strictly party controversies over the same subject a
generation afterwards, and for that matter, at the present day.
The matter of adjusting the public debt was left in the hands of
the Secretary of the Treasury for future action. This extra ses~
sion adjourned Sept. 29, 1789. During the vacation, Nov. 21,
1789, North Carolina ratiﬁed the Constitution and entered the
Union.
FIRST CONGRESS—First Regular'Session—Seat of gov-
ernment at Philadelphia. Met Jan. 4, 1790. Hamilton’s Report
on the adjustment of the public debt furnished the leading sub-
ject for deliberation. This great State paper, which involved
the national credit at home and abroad, was presented January
9. The plan proposed was (1) for the national government to
fund and pay the foreign debt of the Confederacy in full. (2)
To likewise fund and pay the domestic debt of the Confederacy,
at par. This debt was then ﬂoating about in the shape of nearly
worthless promises. (3) That the government should assume
and pay the unpaid debts of the respective States. To the ﬁrst
proposition there was no opposition. Against the second the
extreme anti-Federals rallied, and they were reinforced by such
as Madison,and many others, of Federal leaning. Their logic
was that this debt was largely held by speculators, who had
bought it for a song, and who would realize enormously if it
were paid at par. Against this Hamilton urged that the only way
to permanently raise the broken national credit was to pay all
honest promises in full, and thus teach the ﬁrst holders of them
the folly of parting with a valuable security at a ruinous dis-
282 - POLITICAL HISTORY OF
count. This second proposition ‘ﬁnally carried. The third
proposition was looked upon as a stretch of power on the part
of the government. It was an assumption to do what the States
only could and should do. The entire anti-Federal sentiment
was united against it. Still it was carried by a close vote in the
House (31 to 26). It was however reconsidered a short time
afterwards, on the arrival of the seven anti-Federal representa-
tives from North Carolina, and defeated. But it was ﬁnally car-
ried by the vote of two anti—Federals, who agreed to favor it, in
turn for Federal support of the measure to locate the National
Capitol, after it had remained ten years in Philadelphia, on the
Potomac. Though this bargain clouded somewhat the brilliancy
of Hamilton’s success in getting his propositions through, they
resulted in an instant rebound of the national credit, and the
establishment of government ﬁnance on a substantial working .
basis. The Tariff act of the previous session was amended on
Aug. 10, 1790, by increasing the previous rates of duty. The
other measures of this Congress had no party signiﬁcance. The
body adjourned Aug. 12, 1790, after a session of over seven
months. It had witnessed the coming of Rhode Island into the
Union, by the ratiﬁcation of the Constitution, May 29, 1790.
FIRST CONGRESS—Second Session—Met Dec. 6, 1790,
at Philadelphia. The leading subject was a ﬁnancial agent for the
government in the shape of a National Bank. Over this subject
controversy was heated, and party lines came to be more clearly
deﬁned. The Federals in general, and all who inclined to a liberal
or open construction of the Constitution, claimed that if Congress
could pass laws for revenue and taxes, it could make those laws
effective'through such an agency as a bank. The anti-Federals, and
all strict constructionists, denied the necessity, and therefore the
constitutionality, of such an agent. The controversy thus begun
has continued under one form and another, almost to the present
day. The personalbitternesses and jealousies it then engendered
were never healed, but were carried down to the people and soon
became the basis of permanent party separation. Even the‘
Cabinet was divided, and it was known that jefferson stood ready,
in that august body, to oppose Hamilton in all his ﬁnancial plans.
THE UNITED STATES. 283
The bill to charter a National Bank passed, but so conservative
was Washington that he would not sign it till he had secured
the written opinions of his Cabinet ofﬁcers. That of Hamilton,
in favor of the constitutionality of the act, had greater weight
than those of Jefferson and Randolph, against it, and the bill
secured the President’s signature. It chartered a National Bank
for twenty years, 2'. e., until 1811, when the Republican party
refused to recharter it, only, however, to retrace their steps in
1816, when, under the inﬂuence of liberal construction notions,
and the seemingly imperative needs of the hour, they instituted
another National Bank which met its downfall in 1836* The
ﬁnancial legislation of the session was supplemented by an EX-
cise law, which excited much opposition and became very un-
popular. The ﬁrst Congress ‘adjourned sz'ne die, March 3, I 791.
Altogether it had been an able body, and had done its work
with as little jar and as effectively as was possible for men who
had no exact instructions from constituents and no elaborate
political chart to steer by. The event of "March 4 was the admis-
sion of Vermont as a State. I
SECOND CONGRESS—First Session—Met Oct. 24,
1791, at Philadelphia. The country had passed successfully
through the excitement of Congressional elections, and the
position of the Federals had been maintained, though their
membership in the new body was slightly reduced. This, how-
ever, did not matter, for there -were still many of the Anti-
Federal, or strict construction, turn who supported the adminis-
tration. The House organized by the election of Jonathan
Trumbull of 4 Connecticut, as Speaker. -
THE FIRST REBELLION—Opposition to the excise law’
of the previous Congress, which was fanned by the Anti-Federal
element, culminated in the “ Whiskey Rebellion,” among the dis-
tillers of Western Pennsylvania. The same element also was now
opposing a National Militia Law. But the latter passed, and in
* From that time on, all attempts to establish a National Bank failed, till in 1862
the exigencies of civil war resulted in a strictly national currency under the auspices
of the Treasury Department, and a system of National Banks whose credit is based
- on that of the government. -
284 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
time for the President to use it, so as to bring the armed dis-
putants of the national authorities to terms. The victory
was a moral and bloodless one, achieved through the show of
an unsuspected vigor and resource on the part of the govern-
ment.
THIRD, TARIFF AC T.-—On May 2, 1792, an amended
tariff act was passed which raised the ad valorem rates of duty
some 2% to 5 per cent. It incurred the Opposition of the Anti-
Federals, and called for a repetition of their former arguments.
An apportionment bill, the ﬁrst under the new Constitution, was
also passed. It ﬁxed the ratio of representation at 33,000, under
the census of 1790, increased the membership of the House to
105, and the electoral vote to 135, there being ﬁfteen States,
counting Kentucky, which was admitted June I, 1792. Congress
adjourned its ﬁrst session, May 8, I792.
POLITICAL C ONDI T I ON—The country was about to
pass through the crisis of a Presidential election, the ﬁrst under
the new Constitution. The government had been started, and
maintained thus far under a wholesome division of sentiment
which has been popularly, but not exactly, described as
Federal and Anti-Federal. It was more exactly that division
which is better described as Lz'éeml Interpreters and Strict Inter-
prelers of the Constitution; the former as they were antagonized,
or as their principles demanded, drifting, perhaps unconsciously,
toward larger powers and a fuller exercise thereof on the part of
the national government; the latter as they antagonized, or as
their principles demanded, drifting, perhaps unconsciously,
toward the doctrine which afterwards became known as State
Sovereignty or State Rights. For the former, and because they
were acting afﬁrmatively, the term Federal must still apply. For
the latter there is now no need, except conventionally, of retain~
ing the term Anti—Federal. Indeed the ﬁrst ten amendments
to the Constitution, which were regarded as in the nature of a
declarative Bill of Rights, so disarmed all opposition to the in-
strument itself as to render the term Anti—Federal a misnomer.
Jefferson felt that it was an empty term, and that if the varying,
and often discordant, sentiments represented by it were ever to
THE UNITED STATES. 285
be crystalized, some new and more comprehensive name must
be adopted. The old name was a perpetual reminder of opposi-
tion to the fact of government. As there was no longer any such
opposition, but only questions as to how it should be managed
and with what powers it should be endowed by the creative in-
strument, the new name must, in no degree, he a reminder of
the old political status, but must, on the contrary, be both an
appeal to popular affection and, comprehensive enough to
embrace every form of antagonism to the party which was .still to
be called Federal.
THE REPUBLICAN PAR T Y..—The situation gave birth
to the new party name. Feeling was intense on all sides in favor
of the French Revolutionists. Jefferson, who was fresh from
the scenes, taught that it was the direct outcrop of our own
Revolution, and none chose to gainsay it. But as the Republi-
cans of France drifted toward wild, ungovernable liberty, and
evinced more and more a ﬁerce leveling and communistic spirit,
the Federals checked their ardor and grew cold. In that pro-
portion the Anti-Federals grew warm. Their admiration took
even the fantastic shape of dress and manner imitation. Here
were differences mental and visual. To crown them with the
term Republican was something, but not quite original. To
group all feeling of opposition to the Federals under the term
Democratic-Republican would prove original and striking.
That, therefore, became the new party name. But the Federals
heaped contempt on the Democrats, classed them as Jacobins,
and altogether daunted them in the use of their compound title.
So the ﬁrst part was gradually dropped, and the new party
passed into active politics as the Republican party; which was
all curious enough, seeing that at this very juncture its tendency
was rather toward a Democracy than toward a strong central
Republic. Nor were the ‘Republicans less abusive of the
Federals. These latter were roundly denounced as fellows with
a leaning toward monarchy, and full of all aristocratic notions.
It is very likely that the sentiment among the masses was an
exaggeration of that existing in the councils of the nation, though
even there the President spoke grievously of the antagonisms,
286 POLITICAL HISTORY.
and complained that the old spirit of compromise had turned
into one of unjust suspicion and personal antipathy.
ELECTION OF I792.—Fortunately for _the country party
spirit was not yet deep enough, or bold enough, to affect the
Presidency. The one Republican who could have made a re-
spectable showing in the Presidential ‘race was jefferson, and
both he and Washington were from the same State. Therefore,
both could not be voted for, without the loss of the vote of that
State. Besides many staunch Republicans had joined with the
Federals to request Washington to serve a second term, a course
he had not intended to pursue, till persuaded that the country
demanded it. This left only the Vice-Presidency open to party
contention, and for ‘this Ofﬁce the Federals supported john
Adams, Mass, and the Republicans George Clinton Of New
vYork. The election took place Nov. 6, I 792, and resulted in
the success of the Federal ticket.
SECOND C ON GRESS—Second Sessions—Met Nov. 5, 1792,
at Philadelphia. Revenue questions occupied most of the time
of the session, and the Federals had comparatively easy suc-
cesses, the Republicans not being a unit in their opposition. But
they ﬁgured conspicuously for political position, and made a
direct but unsuccessful attempt to censure Hamilton’s manage-
ment of the Treasury Department. The count Of the electoral
vote* was made in February, 1793, and Washington was de-
clared elected President, and john Adams Vice-President. They
were sworn into ofﬁce on March‘ 4, I 793,. Congress having
adjourned March 2.
II.
WASHINGTON’S SECOND ADMINISTRATION.
i March 4, I793—March 3d, 1797.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, VA., President. jOIIN AnAMs, MAss.,
Vice-President. SEAT OF GOVERNMENT AT PHILADELPHIA.
* For full electoral returns see always the succeeding administration.
'NONHEIA .LNIION .LV NOLONIHSVM 3980319 :10 ZIONEIGISEIH
Milt; '.
': " ll j,»
J!
I.
‘l.
l
t
, a
___- 1151*
__ as; ,7,»
_‘:M
I
l
l‘
"I,
, I, H

288 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
Congresses. Sessions.
1, December 2, I793-June9, 1794.
THIRD CONGRESS‘ 2, November 3, 1794-March 3, 1795.
1, December 7, 17.95-June 1, I796.
FOURTH CONGRESS- {2, December 6, 1796-March 3.1797-
ELECTORAL VOTE.*

Federal.
, a- . Republican.
States. Basis of Geo. Wash— J. Adams, Geo. Clinton,
33,000. Votes. ington, Va. Mass. N. Y.
New Hampshire. . . . 4 ' 6 6 6 . .
Massachusetts . . . . .. 14 16 16 16 . _.
Rhode Island. . . . .. 2 4 4 4' . .
Connecticut . . . . . . - 7 9 ' 9 9 . .
New York . . . . . . .. 10 12 12 . . 12
New Jersey. . . . . . . 5 4 7 7 7
Pennsylvania . . .. 13 15 ' 15 14 _ 1
Delaware . . . . . . . .. I 3 3 3 . .
Maryland . . . . . . . . . 8 10 8 8 . . Two vacancies.
Virginia . . . . . . . . . . 19 21 21 . . 21
North Carolina. . . . 10 12 12 . . 12 .
South Carolina.. . . . 6 8 7 6 Scattered. One vacancy.
Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 4 . . 4 /
Vermont,.......... 2 4. 4 4 .. >
Kentucky . . . . . . 2 4 4 . . Scattered.
Totals... . . . . ..105 I35 I32 77 50-
THE NEW ADMINISTRATION—Washington, in pursu-
ance of his conciliatory policy, made no immediate changes in
his cabinet. He had, however, active and delicate work on hand.
France had (April, 1793) declared war against Great Britain and
Holland. The Republicans gave reins to their sympathy for
their French namesakes, and claimed that. the treaty of 1778,
which bound France and the United States to an alliance offen-
sive and defensive, was still in existence and ought to be re.-
spected. It looked as if war with Great Britain were certain,
with the United States as an ally of France. Notwithstanding
the unpopularity of the act, Washington decided that the treaty
was null, and issued a decree of neutrality‘l" between the con-
tending parties. This Step brought upon his administration, and
on himself personally, the bitterest assaults of the Republicans.
He was denounced as an enemy of Republican France, was a vio-
* Of the votes indicated as “ scattered,” four were cast for Thomas Jefferson and
one for Aaron Burr.
1' This was the beginning of a foreign policy from which there have been few
departures since.
THE UNITED STATES. 289
later of sacred faith, as a usurper ‘of the powers of Congress.
To further complicate and intensify matters, citizen Genet arrived
as Minister to the United States, April 8, I 793. Deceived by
the warmth of his reception at Charleston, S. C., he foolishly
went about the business of raising money, recruiting men and
commissioning cruisers for the French cause. Jefferson ordered
him to desist, but removing to Philadelphia and encouraged by
the Republican clubs of that city, which organizations carried
their sympathy into wild excess, he continued to act as if on
French soil. The French Consul at Boston rescued a libeled
vessel from the United States Marshal. An American privateer
sailed from Philadelphia under French colors, against the orders
of the government. Military organizations were being formed in
Georgia against the Spanish American possessions. Genet was
so inﬂated with his Republican support that he privately an-
nounced his intention of appealing to the people for a general
uprising in behalf of France?‘< Timely exposure of this inten-
tion speedily alienated even his warmest friends, and his meteoric
career was ended by his recall.
THIRD C ONGRESS—First Session—Met Dec. 2, 1793, at.
Philadelphia, and organized by electing F. A. Muhlenberg, of
Pennsylvania, Speaker. He was a Republican, but it was only
when party lines were closely drawn, which was possible on but
a very few questions, that a small Republican majority could be
counted on. The President’s action respecting American neu—
trality and the Genet affair was coldly approved, but Republican
sentiment took another turn. If it could not directly favor
France, it could at least antagonize England. It therefore very
justly called England to account for not carrying out the treaty
of 1 78 3, by which she was to give up her Lake military posts on
American soil. The Indian wars of the Northwest were attri-
buted to' British intrigue. So were the Algerine piracies. All
in all, it looked as if the country were about to be plunged into
war with England, for the Republican course proved to be very
* This announcement was made public by Chief Justice Jay and Senator King,
who published it over their signatures in a New York newspaper. Its truth was
vehemently denied by the Republicans.
19
290 POLITICAL ‘HISTORY OF
popular. England began to judge the country by it, and to act
as though the United States were already a secret, and soon to
become an open, ally of France. She ordered her ships of war
to stop all vessels laden with French supplies and to turn them
into Britishports (june 8, I 793). She began her system of im-
pressing American seamen suspected of being Englishmen. She
aimed a further blow at Americancommerce by actually seizing
ships carrying French supplies and instituting trials against them
in English courts. She justiﬁed her holding the Lake forts on
the ground that our government had refused to pay certain
debts due British subjects. Thus the Republican sympathy for
France had brought ruinous commercial retaliation. jefferson, in
' an ofﬁcial report of December 16, I 793, wisely called a halt by
proposing an effort at amicable adjustment of the diﬁ‘iculties be-
fore proceeding to counter retaliation. The Federals, especially
those of the cabinet, were anxious for the ﬁrst part of thispropo-
sition, but the Republicans, especially the extreme ones, were
implacable, and Madison (january 4, 1794) introduced resolu-
tions imposing prohibit'ory duties on English goods. This
measure invited long debate and served to straighten Repub-
lican lines, but it failed of passage. jefferson retired from the
cabinet in December, 1793, and was succeeded by Edmund Ran-
dolph, of Virginia, as Secretary of State, january 2, I 794. The
former premier retired to his Virginia plantation, and amid his
political writings and plans for the further development of the
new Republican party, of which he was the acknowledged
founder, he escaped responsibility for the mistakes due to the
enthusiasm of his political friends in the Congress. ,
WASHINGTON ACT S.—In accordance with the peaceful
policy outlined in jefferson’s report, Washington nominated
(April 16, I 794) Chief justice jay as Envoy Extraordinary to
England, with a view to a treaty. The Federal Senate conﬁrmed
the nomination. In order to balk the mission the House Re-
- publicans moved to prohibit trade with England. This the
Senate rejected, and jay started on his mission, arriving in Eng-
land in june, 1794.
F UR T HER PARTY C ON T ES T S.—The Federals fought all '
THE UNITED STATES. 291
through the session for their policy of neutrality between France‘
and England, the Republicans for intervention of some kind or
in some way, and the ardor of the latter often drew them into
inconsistencies. Thus while they invited war with England by
measures to prohibit commercial intercourse with her, they at
the same time opposed the Federals in their‘attempts to found
a navy, the most effective weapon with which to carry on such
war. And so when the Federals sought to escape the odium of
Excise taxation by a system of indirect taxes, and a thereby
increased revenue, the Republicans voted for direct taxes.
Another unsuccessful attempt was made by the Republiéans to
censure, by resolution, Hamilton’s management of the Treasury.
They likewise bitterly but ineffectually opposed the Federal bill
designed to approve of Washington’s admonitions against “ self-
created political societies,”* and to prevent a recurrence of Genet’s
attempts to engage a people in’ warlike enterprises without the
consent of their government. This attitude was the more re-
markable because the French government had already disavowed
Genet’s conduct, and sent Fanchet as minister in his stead. But
it was a formative period for the Republicans. Much must be
excused to their enthusiasm, to their lack of deﬁnite policy, to
the newness, oddness and swiftness of the situations they were
called upon to confront. Neither party had yet had very proﬁ-
cient schooling in diplomacy. The Federals had all the advan-
tage of a purpose. They could hew to a line, however roughly.
The Republicans had to agitate and deny, work a negative situa-
tion for all it was worth, and at the disadvantage of youth and
inexperience. As yet they had invented no distinctive afﬁrma-
tive American measure on which they could consistently unite,
or risk their future success.
X I T H AMENDMENT—Could a citizen of the United States
sue a State? The Supreme Court had decided that a State was
suable like any other corporation, and that too by a citizen of
another State. This was a terrible blow to the members of the g
* The allusion~ was to the various secret associations formed for working up an
American-French sentiment, and popularizing, if not justifying, such conduct as
Genet had been guilty of. -
292 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
strict construction school. The Republicans therefore proposed
the XI. Amendment, which limited the judicial power of the
United States, and exempted a State from suit in the Federal
courts, instituted by a citizen of another State, or by a foreign
citizen. The wisdom of this amendment was not much mooted
at the time, but the advantage taken of it by States which have
felt inclined to repudiate their debts has shaken public faith in
its justice. It was proposed March 5, 1794, and declared in force
Jan. 8, 1798, having been ratiﬁed by the necessary number of
States. -
TARIFF AC T -The Fourth.-The Federals Succeeded in
amending the Tariff Act of 1792, by increasing the ad valorem
rates of duty, June 7, 1794. The imperative need of revenue,
the quiet and general distribution of taxation in this form, and
the sure and easy manner of collection, reconciled many of
the Republicans to it, so long as it was unmixed with the
afﬁrmative doctrine of protection. Congress adjourned June 9,
I794- ,
THIRD CONGRESS—Second Session—Met Nov. 3,1794,
at Philadelphia. The Session opened by warm debate on Hamil-
ton’s plan of Internal Taxation. These debates continued at
intervals throughout the session, and resulted in the passage of
the measure, the Republicans not being able to keep their opposi-
tion solid. Hamilton resigned from the Cabinet in January, 1795,
and was Succeeded (Feb. 2) by Oliver Wolcott, of Connecticut.
Congress adjourned sine dz'e March 3, 1795.
EXCITING IIVTER VAL—Minister Jay had succeeded in a
treaty with England by November, 1794. It reached America
March 7, 1795. The Senate was called to consider it, June 8,
1795. It was ratiﬁed by a two-third majority, and while await-
ing the President’s Signature its contents (June 29) were pre-
maturely divulged by one of the Senators. Its appearance was
the signal for a Republican attack on the administration, and on
all concerned in its negotiation and ratiﬁcation, which for the
directness and bitterness of its personalism has probably never
been surpassed. Meetings were called in the cities to denounce
it, and to present appeals to the President not to Sign it. It was
THE UNITED STATES. 293
denounced as not covering any of the causes of grievance. It
left England at liberty to impress American seamen, to interfere
with our commerce, to shut off our West India trade, and so
on. The President signed it. This turned denunciation of the
treaty into abuse of his administration and himself. He was
charged with usurpation, with indifference to American prisoners
in Algiers, with embezzlement of public funds, with ofﬁcial
incapacity then and during the Revolution, with hostility to his
country’s interests, and even with treason. Malignity took the
form of threats to impeach, and even to assassinate him. On
Republican lips he was no longer “the Father,” but “the Step-
father of his Country.” “ He would rather be in his grave than
in the Presidency,” was his sad comment on these thoughtless
and _vulgar drives at his private character. The treaty itself
came to his vindication. England speedily removed her Lake
' forts from American soil. In less than a year American com-
merce took a rebound. Jay’s much denounced treaty passed
into political history with the approval of its bitterest opponents.
FOURTH CONGRESS—First Session—Met December 7,
1795, at Philadelphia. Senate contained a Federal majority:
House a Republican, though not united,‘ majority. Jonathan
Dayton, Federal, of New Jersey, was elected Speaker. The
President’s message was approved by the Senate, by a vote of
14 to 8. The Republicans of the House refused to agree to a
resolution which contained an expression of “conﬁdence in the
President and approval of his course.” _
A CONFLI C T.——The President sent to Congress, March I,
1796, his proclamation that the Jay treaty had been duly ratiﬁed
and was law. Mr. Livingstone, of New York, against the ad-
vice of the more liberal members of his party, moved that the
President be requested to send to the House a copy of the treaty
and all the papers connected with it. After an acrimonious de-
bate the resolution passed by a vote of 57 Republicans to
35 Federals. Washington refused to comply, saying that
the House was not a part of the treaty-making power.* This
*This answer of Washington involved the principle which has ever since been
accepted as the correct one regarding treaties.
294 _ POLITICAL HISTORY OF
stirred the animosity of the Republicans still deeper. Word
was passed to the country that a “ British party” existed, and
that the administration had been corrupted with British gold.
Indignation meetings were again called. The House resolved
that it had a right to the papers because it was a judge of the
necessity of a treaty wherever an expenditure of public money
was involved. The Federals, under the lead of Fisher Ames,
of Massachusetts, rallied to the support of a counter resolution,
declaring that provision should be made for carrying out the
treaty. This was distracting to the Republicans, and they
fought it, at ﬁrst very desperately, through the month of April
(to April 29th). In the meantime the country was responding,
but not in a way the Republicans had hoped for. The people
were tired of the agitation and did not want the treaty set aside.
A Presidential election was coming on. It might not be prudent
to push a doubtful question further at such a time. The Repub-
lican majority weakened, fell into a deliberative mood, and
ﬁnally helped to pass the Ames resolution by a vote of 51
to 48.
Questions of revenue occupied the rest of the session. One
of them related to a further increase of Tariff rates, on which
political lines were closely drawn, and the Federals, who fa-
vored the increase, were beaten. Tennessee became a State
of the Union june I, I 796, and on that day the Congress ad-
journed.
FAREWELL ADDRESS—On September I 7, I 796, Wash-
ington gave to the American people his farewell address. He
had been solicited by men of both political parties to become
for the third time a candidate for the Presidency, and had been
assured of the support of the people. But his determination to
retire to private life could not be altered. His address, care
fully drawn and solemnly worded, was his vindication against
attack, which was to stand forall time, and his appeal to his
countrymen to be true to the government, to beware of foreign ’
inﬂuences, to avoid party strife, and to cultivate religion, educa.
tion, and patriotic devotion to their institutions. It was a full
reﬂex of the man, conservative, yet ﬁrm; solemn, yet hopeful;
THE UNITED STATES. 295
plain, yet elegant; great, yet unselﬁsh.* It was received every-
where with approbation, and ranks today as a political classic,
well worth study by every young man.
ELECTION OF I796.-—The mission of Washington had
been to hold sentiment together, or see that every conspicuous
shade was represented, till the experimental period of the new
government had passed. It had now passed, and his retirement
left the ﬁeld open to the square contention of parties. By mu-
tual understanding, rather than by Congressional caucus nomina-
tion, the candidates of the Federals became John Adams, of
Massachusetts, and Thomas Pinckney, of Maryland, and those
of the Republicans Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia, and Aaron
Burr, of New York. '
There was no platform announcement of party principles, but
the Federals claimed to represent Washington’s policy of peace,
neutrality, ﬁnance, progress, safety, and the right as founders of
the government to place its existence beyond hazard before being
called upon to part with their high trust. The Republicans
claimed to be the advocates of economy, enlarged liberty, the
rights of man, the rights of the States, and they did not hesitate
to charge the Federals with every real and conceivable sin of
commission and omission, among them an inclination toward an
English policy and form of government. Though this latter
was in manifest forgetfulness of their own well-known favoritism
for France, the country was reminded of it by a presumptuous
paper issued by the French Minister, called an “Address to the
American People,” and designed to inﬂuence the Presidential
contest, in which the hint was thrown out that France would
have to withhold intercourse with the United States if the
Republicans were unsuccessful. ‘
*One characteristic of the address is its delicate undertone of vindication and
complaint. The former was designed and exquisitely incorporated. The latter
seems foreign to a man of Washington’s iron will. But he was withal very sensi-
tive, and it must have been well-nigh impossible for even one of his high, unbend-
ing character, and though the paper were studied and stately to the last degree, to
avoid all shadow of complaint. He had previously spoken of the attacks on him
as aggravatingly malicious and personal, and made “in terms so exaggerated and
indecent as could scarcely be applied to a Nero, a notorious defaulter, or even a
common pickpocket.”
. 296 POLITICAL HISTORY.
The Presidential election was held in November, I 796, the
electors being chosen by the Legislatures of the several States,
a practice which continued till 1824, and in some States till a
- later period.
FOURTH CONGRESS—Second Session—The Congress
met December 5, I796. It was a comparatively quiet session,
and void of party interest. In February the count of the elec-
toral votes was made, and the result showed a glaring defect in
the method of choosing the President. Adams received 71 votes,
Jefferson 68, Pinckney 59, and Burr 30. Thus there was a Fed-
eral President and a Republican Vice-President, with all the con-
fusion incident to a change of administration in mid-term, in
case of the death or disability of the former, and all the danger
to be apprehended from a like change if partisanship 0r corrup-
tion should accomplish his impeachment or removal. The ex-
perience furnished by the next Presidential election brought a
much needed amendment of the method of voting. An amended
Tariff act was passed March 3, which made a slight increase in
the duty on manufactures of cotton. Congress adjourned sine
die March 3, I 797, and on March 4 Adams and Jefferson were
sworn into ofﬁce.
III.
ADAMS’ ADMINISTRATION.
March 4, I 797—March 3, 1801.
JOHN ADAMS, MAss, President. THOMAS JEFFERSON, VA., Wa-
President. SEAT OF GOVERNMENT AT PHILADELPHIA.
Congresses. Sessions.
I, May 15, 1797—July 10, I797, extra leﬂion.
FIFTH CONGRESS. 2, November 13, 1797-]uly 16, 1798.
3, December 3, I798—March 3, I799.
I, December 2, I799-May I4, 1800.
2, November 17, I8oo-March 3, 1801.
ELECTORAL VOTE.
SIXTH CONGRESS.

Federals. Republicans.
Basis of JiAdams, Thos. Pine]?- rThos. eﬂ'er- A. Burr; Scat-
States. 33,000. Votes. Mass. ney, Md. son, a. N. Y. tering.
New Hampshire. . . . 4 6 6 . . . . . . 6
Massachusetts... . . 14 I6 I6 13 . . . . 3
_)Rhode Island . . . . . . 2 4 4 . . ~. . . . 4

JoHN ADAMS.
298 - POLITICAL HISTORY OF
Electoral Vote—Continued.

Federals. Republicans.
Basis of J. Adams. T1105. Pincll ,Thos. jleﬁ'er- A. BIT; Scat-
States. 33,000. Votes. Mass. ney, Md. son, a. N. Y. tering.
Connecticut . . . . . . . . 7 9 9 4 . . . . 5
New York . . . . . . . . . Io 12 12 _ 12 . . . . .
New jersey . . . . . . . . 5 ' 7 7- 7 . . . . .
Pennsylvania . . . . . . . I3 I 5 I 2 I4 13 .
Delaware . . . . . . . . . . I 3 3 3 . . . . .
Maryland........... 8 IO 7 4 4 3 2
Virginia............ I9 2! I I 20 I 19
North Carolina.. . . .. 10 12 1 1 11 6 5
South Carolina.. . . .. 6 8 . . 3 8 . . . .
Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 . . . . 4. . . 4
Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 4 4 . . . . . .
Kentucky........... 2 4 .. .. 4 4 ..
Tennessee.......... I 3 .. .. - 3 3 ..
Totals . . . . . . . ..106 138 71 '5'9' 6'? 3'? It???
THE CABINET.
Secretary of State . . . . . .Timothy Pickering, Pa . . . . . .Contintued.
Secretary of Treasury. . .Oliver Wolcott, Conn.. . . . . .. “
Secretary of War . . . . . . .james McHenry, Md. . . . . . . . “
Secretary of Navy.. . . ...To Department of War till I798.
Attorney-General . . . . . . .Charles Lee, Va . . . . . . . . . . . “
Postmaster-GeneraL. . . . .joseph Habersham, Ga . . . . . .With Treas.Depart. till 1829.
Continued.
THE INA UGURAL.+—President Adams in his inaugural
broadly afﬁrmed the policy of the Washington administrations,
and made a calm and ‘studied denial of the oft-repeated charges
that the Federal party was inﬂuenced by English patronage or
any love for England. It did'not serve to mellow the bitterness
of the Republicans. On the contrary, they seemed to share the
bad feeling now openly manifested by the French Republic on
account of Republican defeat in America.
ARMED NE UT RALI T I/Y—Adams found his administration
between an upper and nether millstone of excitement. He must
act and that promptly. Steps were taken toward preserving the
neutrality established by the previous administrations, peaceably
if possible, forcibly if necessary. A navy was improvised.
Monroe, an ardent Republican and Minister to France, was re-
called, and C. C. Pinckney sent in his stead. The French
* Of those marked as scattering Samuel Adams received 15; Oliver Ellsworth,
I I ; George Clinton, 7; john jay, 5; james Iredell, 3 ; George Washington, 2; john
Henry, 2; S. jphnson, 2; and Charles C. Pinckney, I.
THE UNITED STATES. 299
Directory parted with Monroe, expressing admiration for the
American people, and contempt for the American government.
They at the same time ordered Pinckney to quit their country,
and declared they would receive no more American ministers
till their grievances, prominent among which was the Jay treaty,
were redressed.
FIFTH CONGRESS—Extra Session—On hearing of the
French attitude, the President called the Fifth Congress into
Extra Session, May 15, 1797. It organized by electing Jonathan
‘Dayton, of New Jersey, Speaker. He was a Federal, and that
party had a majority in both branches. The President developed
his foreign policy in an address. It meant neutrality, even at the
expense of war with offenders. But three envoys were proposed,
to go to France and exhaust all reasonable efforts for peace.
These were approved by both Houses, and they departed on their
mission. Congress adjourned July 10, 1797.
AN EMPTY MISSION—While the envoys were absent the
respective parties kept their feelings ablaze by the old charges
of English and French inﬂuence and favoritism. “ The country
contained few Americans, but very many English and French,”
was remarked of the situation by a foreign observer. The
envoys, after a fruitless effort at peace, submission to conduct
they regarded as- humiliating, and refusal on their part to listen
to a request for a loan to the French Republic as a preliminary
to negotiations, came back to report their failure, 'and meet the
ridicule of the Republicans. ’
A CONDITION OF WAR—While the envoys—the XpY.
Z. mission"< as they were called—had been treated hardly by
the French, and no better by their opponents at home, the
country was forced to confront the solemn fact that France was
making not only secret attack upon its commerce, under cover
of law, but open attack as well, which nothing but a state of war
would excuse. Any vessel carrying American shipping papers
was deemed ﬁt subject for seizure and conﬁscation.
* Agents of the French Directory over the initials X. Y. Z. had intimated to the
envoys the possibility of their success, provided they could offer some substantial
money inducement.
300 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
FIFTH CONGRESS—First Regular Session—Met at Phila-
delphia, Nov. 13, I797. The juncture was critical. The Re-
publicans were so pronouncedly in favor of France, and
were so strong, that it looked as if a policy of “Armed
Neutrality” would at any moment go to the wall. Early in
I798 they were able, in the House, to vote down a proposition to
arm American vessels. But the Senate, April 8, made public
the attempted negotiations of the envoys to France. They sur-
prised both parties. The Federals became furious at the insult
heaped on their accredited agents and at the double-dealing, not
to say corrupt overtures, of the French Directory. The Re-
publicans stood aghast at the revelation. They could not brook
conduct so ﬂagrant, much as their sympathies had been enlisted
in behalf of their struggling brethren of France. The more
patriotic and shrewder-minded turned in with the Federals. A
respectable minority found silence golden. American self-
respect and American danger impelled to a common political
sentiment, and that sentiment found popular outburst in the cry
of “ millions for defence, but not one cent for tribute.”
ALIEN AND SEDITION LA WS.——-Congress co-operated
with the administration in placing the government on a war
footing. The navy was strengthened, and orders were issued to
seize French vessels operating against American commerce.
Letters of marque and reprisal were authorized. Treaties with
France were declared abrogated. A temporary army was
ordered, to be commanded by Washington as Lieutenant-
General. Thus far all was popular and unquestioned. But
France was to be fought not only on the ocean and on the ﬁeld.
It was felt that she was stronger in the country through her
secret emissaries than in any other spot. Hence, the Alien Law,
passed June 2 5, I798, giving the President power to order aliens,
whom he should adjudge dangerous, out of the country, and
providing for the ﬁne and imprisonment of those who refused to
go. This was followed by the Sedition Law of July 14, to re-
main in force till March 3, I801. It imposed ﬁne and imprison-
ment on conspirators to resist government measures, and on
libellers and scandalizers of the government, Congress or Presi-
dent.
THE UNITED STATES. 301
NA T URALIZA T I ON LA VV.——-This law required an alien to
reside fourteen years in the United States before he could be
naturalized. The Federals favored it on general principles of
safety to the country, and because they felt that they could not
hope for accessions to their party from any foreign element then
likely to become immigrant. The Republicans fought for a ﬁve-
year probation, on the ground that America was properly an
asylum for all nations, that a longer term would cause too many
of the inhabitants to owe no allegiance, and because they
knew, with the Federals, that immigrants would naturally
augment their political ranks. The Congress adjourned July
16,1798.
S T ORM Y IN T ER VAL—War action had been setinto feverish
reaction by the Alien and Sedition Laws, which the Republicans
regarded as a violent stretch of constitutional authority, and as
arming the government with altogether too much power, even
for war times. Not choosing to distinguish between themselves
and those at whom the laws were aimed, they claimed that they
were a menace to all Republicans, that they abridged liberty of
speech and the press, that they were unconstitutional out and
out. They had the best of the argument before the country,
for the Federals could only justify them by the necessities of the
hour. Constitutional construction was then in its infancy, and
any new step was likely to excite jealousy and alarm. As a
matter of policy, they were a step beyond what the Federals need
have taken. They had, without them, a patriotic and permanent
standpoint, and they had for it a strong Republican support,
especially among the people, caused by the action of the French
Directory. Their execution gave greater offence than their
enactment. Having gone too far to retract, the administration
insisted on carrying them out, even though France had come
forward to deny any knowledge of bribery and corruption on the
part of her agents, and had expressed a desire for peace. Thus
they became a torment to the Federals, present and recurring.
Aware of their keenness as a political weapon the Republicans
drove it home on every occasion.
CONGRESSIONAL ELE C T I ON S .——Though the enforce-
302 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
ment of the Alien and Sedition Laws was a source of weakness
to the Federals, the Republicans soon felt they could not hope
by their opposition to them to carry the fall (1798) Congressional
elections. They therefore turned their attention to the State
Legislatures, feeling that there their opposition could be made
effective in the next Presidential election. Effort took the shape
of denunciatory resolutions (really proclamations) passed by the
Legislatures of two States. They are noteworthy as being the
ﬁrst formal declaration of strict construction views of the day,
and are worthy of study as containing the doctrine on which all
subsequent strict constructionists have relied for their advocacy
of State sovereignty, nulliﬁcation and secession.
RESOLUTIONS OF 1798.—-The Kentucky resolutions were
drawn by jefferson, the Virginia resolutions by Madison. Both
were adopted by the respective State Legislatures. The Vir-
ginia resolutions declared the Constitution to be a compact made
by the States and to form which the States had agreed to sur-
render only a part of their own powers. The Federal govern—
ment could not exceed the authority delegated to it by the
States. If it did the States had a right to stop it, and to main-
tain the powers they had reserved to themselves. The Alien
and Sedition Laws were usurpations of powers not granted to
the Federal government, for the Constitution forbade any abridg-
ment of liberty of speech or the press. The State of Virginia
declared them unconstitutional, and appealed to the other States
to join her. The governor was ordered to lay the resolutions
before the other State Legislatures. They were repeated in
1799- ' _
The Kentucky resolutions repeated those of Virginia in sub-
stance, and added that the Federal compact was as if a contract
between two parties, the States being one, and the Federal gov-
ernment the other; and that each party was to be the judge of
any breach of the agreement, as well as of the manner of redress.
These were also repeated in 1799, but with the wonderfully bold
amendment, designed to draw the line between party opposition
and criminal or treasonable opposition to the government,-that
the rightful remedy on the part of a State was “ nulliﬁcation of
THE UNITED STATES. 303
all unauthorized acts (by the Federal government) done under
color of that instrument (the Constitution).” It ought to be
observed, in justice to Jefferson, ever diplomatic, if very ardent
in his Republicanism, and who, at this time a prospective candi-
date for the Presidency, would not willingly have jeopardized
his chances, however anxious he might have been to force home
on the Federals their mistake in passing the Alien and Sedition
Laws, that the ﬁnal position taken in the Kentucky resolutions
was far more ultra than his own, and that it was not regarded as
good strict construction doctrine, till other causes, times and
men,* conspired to give it sanction and render it operative.
FIFTH C ON GRESS—Second Session—Met at Philadelphia,
Dec. 3, 1798. Irregular ocean warfare was still going on be—
tween American and French _privateers. There. was scarcely
any opposition to an increase of the navy, but the Republicans
antagonized every measure for an increase of the army, alleging
that none was needed and that the matter was only an ingenious
Federal scheme, gotten up for the sake of providing places for‘
their party leaders. The President, who had hitherto been ﬁrm,
but who began to feel that his ﬁrmness was really a source of
weakness so far as his aspirations to succeed himself in ofﬁce
were concerned, departed from his determination not to negotiate
further with France, and, without consulting his Cabinet, sent
three other envoys to treat for peace. This action led to a divi-
sion in the Cabinet, and the protesting members met with the
approval of the Federal party at large. The effort of the Presi-
dent _to recover lost ground with the Republicans lost him more
ground within his own party. Congress adjourned sine a’z'e
March 3, 1799. ~-
SIX T H CONGRESS—First Session.—Met at Philadelphia,
Dec. 2, 1799. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts was chosen
Speaker. He was a Federal, and the Federals had a good work-
ing majority in both Houses. They represented the war feeling
of the country, and had been chosen before sentiment began to
revolt against the enforcement of the Alien and ‘Sedition Laws,
at least before such revolting sentiment could be made effective
‘ll’ Notably 1832, Calhoun’s time; and 1860, the era of open secession.
. 304 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
in the Congressional districts. -It was the policy of the Repub-
licans to avoid all party contests. Drawing their inspiration
from Jefferson, they kept quiet, conscious that the ferment of
opposition already active in the body politic would work favor-
ably to them, and by no means displeased witnesses of the
estrangement, gradually growing wider, between the President, '
and such prominent Federal leaders as Hamilton and others. .
The Federals in Congressional caucus nominated as their candi-
dates for the Presidency John Adams, of Mass, and C. C.
Pinckney, of S. C. The Republicans, in a Congressional Con-
vention* at Philadelphia, nominated Thomas Jefferson, Va., and
Aaron Burr, N. Y. Congress adjourned May 14, 1800.1’
*ELECTION OF I800.—Though the Legislatures of the
States did not meet to choose Presidential electors till Novem-
ber, the fact that those bodies chose them made the Presidential
result turn on their political complexion. The Presidential elec-
tion was therefore in reality scattered over a great part of the
year previous to November. Adams was unfortunate in not
having the undivided support of his party. The State election
*This term “Congressional Convention ” implies what we would now under-
stand to be a Congressional Caucus. It was full, formal and called, and therein
differed from those informal caucuses of members which had bespoke former nom-
inations. The ﬁrst political platform, and the only one till the Clintonian address
or platform of 1812, was that of this Republican Congressional Convention of 1800
which nominated Jefferson. It announced (I) “ Preservation of the Constitution in
the sense in which it was adopted by the States; ” (2) “ Opposition to monarchizing
its features;” (3) “Preservation to the States of the powers not yielded to the
Union, and to the Legislature of the Union its constitutional share in division of
powers; ” (4) “A rigorously frugal administration of the government; ” (5) “ Re-
liance for internal defence solely on-the militia, until actual invasion, and for such
naval force only as may be sufﬁcient to protect our coasts and harbors; ” (6) “ Free
commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplo-
matic establishment; ” (7) “No linking ourselves with the quarrels of Europe; ”
(8) “ Freedom of religion; ” (9) “ Freedom of speech and the press; ” (10)
“ Liberal naturalization laws; ” (II) “ Encouragement of science and art.”
1' On May 13, 1800, the sixth amended Tariff act was passed, raising the duty on
sugar one-half cent per pound, and on silk 2% per cent. The rates on the leading
articles now ranged as follows: Sugar, 2% cents per pound; coffee, 5 cents per
pound; tea, 18 cents per pound; salt, 20 cents per bushel; pig iron, 15 per cent. ;
bar iron, 15 per cent.; glass, 20 per cent.; cotton goods, I 5 per cent.; woollens,
I2% to 15 per cent.; siik, 2% per cent.
THE UNITED sTATEs. - U
‘.05,
in New York, April 28, resulted in a Republican Legislature.
This result, due more to Hamilton’s estrangement than to either
Jefferson’s or Burr’s popularity, was a bad omen for the Federals.
Adams was so piqued that he dismissed Hamilton's friends from
the cabinet, and they went forth branded as British factionists.
The Republicans had been making their ground solid in the
States by such means as the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions
for two years. But despite their seeming advantage of harmony '
and popular hue and cry, the returns in November were doubt-
ful till South Carolina was heard from. Her vote settled the
election in favor of the Republicans.
SIXTH CONGRESS—Second Session—Met at Washing-
ton, Nov. 17, 1800* This short session had a problem on hand
which loomed up in the Fourth Congress, and which in certain
shapes has returned periodically to plague Congress and the
people. The electors had voted under the then existing consti-
tutional provision, each for two candidates not of the same
State. In February, 1801, when Congress came to count the
returns, it was found that Jefferson and Burr each had 73 votes,
Adams 65 and Pinckney 64. There was therefore no choice, for
no one candidate had the highest vote.
C ON T ES T ED ELEC T ION—The election passed to the
House, where a protracted struggle resulted, and one full of bit-
terness and danger. The Federal element had to choose between
two Republicans, one of whom, Jefferson, the Republicans were
bent on making the President, the other, Burr, the Vice-Presi-
dent. Some of the Federals preferred to reverse this, not only
to balk the Republican plan, but because they regarded Jefferson
as a more formidable opponent than Burr. Burr himself fell, of
course, to this idea, and fostered it by all the arts of which he
was the well-known master. Balloting began‘Feb. 11, and, after
running for several days, the Federals proposed to confess their
inability to elect by vote of the States. Against this the Repub-
licans threatened armed resistance. After other days were con- '
* The Capitol building was ready in June, 1800, and the ten years during which
the seat of government was to remain at Philadelphia having expired, it was fom- '
ally removed to Washington at this session of Congress.
' 20 Y
306 _ POLITICAL HISTORY OF
sumed in idle balloting, the Federals were charged with a wish
to put off the election till after the 4th of March and thus to
make john jay, Chief justice of the Supreme Court, the tempo-
rary President. The result proved that this charge had no
foundation. Burr ﬁnally lost caste in his attempts to dicker with
the Federals, and jefferson won on the 36th ballot, Feb. 17, by
securing ten States, leaving four for Burr and two blank. This
contention so clearly proved the defects and dangers of the plan
of electoral voting that the Twelfth Amendment was proposed
to the‘ Constitution, Dec. 12, 1803, and declared in force Sept.
25, 1804. Congress adjourned sine dz'e, March 3, I801. jeffer-
son was sworn in’ as President and Burr as Vice-President,
March 4.
IV.
IEFFERSON’S FIRST ADMINISTRATION.
March 4, 1801—March 3, 1805.
THOMAS jEFFERsoN, VA., President. AARON BURR, N. Y., Vice-
President. SEAT OF GOVERNMENT AT WASHINGTON.
Congresses. Sessions.
1, December 7, 1801-May 3, 1802.
SEVENTH CONGRESS’ 2, December 6, 1802—March 3, 1803.
1, October 17, 1803—March 27, 1804.
EIGHTH CONGRESS. 2, November 5, 1304.Mar¢h 3, 1805.
ELECTORAL VOTE.

Republicans. Federals.
Basis 01 ' Thos. #:ffer- A. Burr; _ITAdams, C. C. Pinck.
. States. 33,000. Votes. son, a. N. Y. Mass. nay, S. C.
Connecticut . . . . . . . . 7 9 . . . . 9 9
Delaware........... 1 3 .. .. 3 3
Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 4 4 . .
Kentucky........... 2 4 4 4 .. ..
Maryland . . . . . . . . . . 8 10 5 5 5 5
Massachusetts . . . . . . 14 I6 . . . . 16 I6
vNew Hampshire. . . . 4 6 . . . . 6 6
New jersey . . . . . . . . 5 7 . . . . 7 7
New York . . . . . . . . . 10 12 12 12 . . . .
North Carolina. . . . .. Io ' 12 8 8 4 4
Pennsylvania . . . . . . . 13 15 6 8 7 7
Rhode Island . . . . . . 2 4 . . Sc.* 4 3
South Carolina. . . . .. 6 8 8 8 . . . .
Tennessee. . . . . . . . . . 1 3 5 3 . . .
Vermont . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 . . . . 4 4
Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . 19 21 ' 21 21 . . . .
Totals. . . . . . . . . 106 I38 73 73 65 61-?
* This one vote was thrown for john jay.
1' N0 choice. See contested election on p. 305.

THOMAS JEFFERSON.
308 POLITICAL ‘HISTORY or
CABINET.
Secretary of State . . . . . .James Madison, Va.
Secretary of Treasury. .Samuel Dexter, Mass . . . . . .Continued.
Secretary of War . . . . . . Henry Dearborn, Mass.
Secretary of Navy . . . . . .Benjamin Stoddard, Md. . . .Continued.
Attorney-General . . . . . ..Levi Lincoln, Mass.
Postmaster-General. . . . .Joseph Habersham, Ga. . . . .Continued.
POLITICAL REVOLUTION—The Republican sweep was
clean, up to the door of the Judiciary. Adams’ defeat was keenly
felt, though not unexpected. He had many admirers who remem-
bered with pride his eloquence in behalf of Independence, and
his bold stand in favor of Federalism. But the loss of a Presi-
dent was as nothing compared with the permanent break in the
Federal lines. The breaches we're too wide for healing. The
prestige .it had acquired in placing the government on a ﬁrm
basis, in anxious controversy for such power as would make it
respected at home and abroad, in spirited contention for a policy
of neutrality, and in timely, though not very masterly, effort to
restrain the French Republican inﬂuence, had been badly clouded
by some of its later efforts to hold political place, or at least pre-
vent certain of its opponents from holding the same. Its internal
weaknesses were now in sad contrast with that former boldness
which successfully dared the most intricate ﬁnancial problems,
provided an ample revenue, and established an enduring national
credit. ‘
NE W PO lVER—Jefferson’s inaugural address laid down the
policy of the Republican party. After attempting to remove
asperities and smooth differences, he announced the intention
to continue the payment of the public debt, reduce the army and
navy, lower taxes, restrict the power of Federal government to
the lowest limit permitted by the Constitution, and preserve the
State governments in all their rights. While the message had
the effect of abating party spirit somewhat, the old outcrops of
enmity were still frequent. Federals were still “ Black Cockade
Federals.” Republicans were still “ Democrats and Jacobins.”
The wealth, intellect and culture of the countiy, largely of Fed-
eral type, naturally felt apprehensive of a situation now com-_
manded by those it had learned to look upon with distrust and
THE UNITED sTATEs._ 309
to associate with what was foreign and revolutionary in spirit.
Perhaps they saw in Jefferson himself all they feared from his
party, when they spoke of him as “ an atheist in religion and a
fanatic in politics.”
REMOVALS FROM OFFICE—The President proceeded
immediately to undo some of the centralizing measures of the
preceding administration by pardoning those imprisoned under
the Alien and Sedition Laws. Then he turned his attention to
his party friends anxious for ofﬁce. His removal of Elizur
Goodrich, Federal, from the Collectorship of New Haven, and
the appointment of Samuel Bishop, Republican, in his stead, was
looked upon as a proscriptive innovation, and brought a Federal
storm about his ears. Washington had made his appointments
without reference to political opinions. Adams had made few
removals and none for political reasons. Why should the old
rule be broken? And especially why should it be broken in
this instance when Goodrich was competent and‘ Bishop was 78
years old and incompetent? To all which Jefferson made the
memorable reply whose spirit was, in Jackson's time, incorpo-
rated into the aphorism, “ To the victor belong the spoils.”
With rare sagacity, he, however, drew a ﬁne line of distinction
. between removals for retaining opinions and removals for using
inﬂuence. The former he would not make, the latter he would
make. And again he would rebuke President Adams, by re-
moving all his appointees after the result of the Presidential
election became known.* All of this is interesting as the rather
cautious beginning of that policy of removal from ofﬁce, and
appointment thereto, which grew by slow degrees until Jackson
* Jefferson said that it was not “ political intolerance to claim a proportionate ‘share
in the direction of public affairs. If a clue participation of ofﬁce is a matter of right,
how are vacancies to be obtained? Those by death are few, by resignation none.”
He would base his causes for removal as “ much as possible on delinquency, on
oppression, onintolerance, on ante-revolutionary adherence to our enemies.” After
thus getting a fair quota of the ofﬁces for his party, and thus correcting what he
charged as erroneous procedure on the part of his predecessor, he said, “ that done,
I will return with joy to that state of things when the only question: concerning a
candidate shall be: Is he honest? Is he capable ? Is he faithful to the Constitu-
tion ? ”
3IO POLITICAL HISTORY OF
claimed the policy to be an indisputable right, and which has been
exercised since by all political parties as such, until questioned
by the civil service reform spirit of the present day.
SEVENTH C ONGRESS—F irst Session—Met Dec. 7, I801.
Organized by electing Nathaniel Macon, Republican, of North
Carolina, Speaker, there being a small Republican majority in
both branches. Instead of delivering his message in person to
the Congress as Washington and Adams had done, jefferson
presented it in writing and thus established a custom which has
ever since been maintained, for convenience sake as well as for
its accordance with republican simplicity. The Congress went
manfully to work to modify previous Federal legislation. The
limit for naturalization was ﬁxed at ﬁve years, with privilege of
declaration of intention after a residence of three years. The act
of I 798 required a residence of fourteen years. A sinking fund
was established. The army, navy and taxes were reduced.
Perhaps the most direct blow at the Federals was the repeal of
the judiciary law. The law of the previous session had estab-
lished twenty-four new Circuit Courts, the ofﬁcers for which
Adams had appointed the last thing before retiring. The Re-
publicans said this was an abuse of his power, in that the com-
missions had been made out and signed after the results of the
Presidential election had become known. They called them
“ midnight judges,” and though the Federals declared that there
was udicial work for all of them, and further that Adams had
not exceeded his authority in granting their commissions, the
Republicans found a way to overcome, for the time being, their
strict construction notions and repeal the bill. This drove the
Federals from their last hold on the government, and they never
recovered their lost ground. Ohio entered the Union Nov. 29,
1802. Congress adjourned May 3, 1802. ‘
LOUISIANA PURCHASE—Republican zeal for France and
the French Republican cause received a blow early in 1802 when
it was announced that Spain had secretly ceded the Louisiana
Territory to France. Our government had been making war
preparations against Spain in order to settle the right to free
navigation of the Mississippi, and to equal privileges about the
THE UNITED STATES. , 311
Gulf entrance. By the cession to France, the entire programme
changed. The government was confronted with a new and more
formidable owner of this vast country of Louisiana,* and proba-
bly with a new set of complications. Minister Livingston was
instructed to remonstrate with the French Emperor and to say
that F rance’s possession of this territory would drive the Ameri-
can Republic to enter into an alliance with England. James
Monroe was sent to Livingston’s aid, with instructions to buy
Florida and the Island of Orleans, which Jefferson mistakingly
supposed had been embraced in the Spanish cession to France.
Monroe found France in need of money for contemplated war
on England and not averse to selling all of Louisiana. A bar-
gain was at once struck for $15,000,000, and though Monroe
had exceeded his instructions and no authority existed anywhere
for the transaction, Jefferson agreed to the contract, trusting to
the Congress and the people to stand by him. In this he was
not disappointed. The treaty of purchase was ratiﬁed by the
Senate, Oct. 20, 1803.
SEVENTH C ON GRESS—Second Session—Met Dec. 6,
1802. The respective parties were so watchful of each other and
so resolute that each failed to accomplish any signiﬁcant political
' legislation. The action of Spain was censured by the Republi-
cans. Attempts to amend the Constitutional mode of electing a
President, to abolish the mint, and to fasten a charge of mis-
management on the Treasury Department, failed. Congress
adjourned sine dz'e, March 3, 1803.
EIGHTH C OIVGRESS—First Session—This Congress was
called together Oct. I 7, 1803, in order that the treaty for the
purchase of Louisiana might be disposed of. The Republican
majority had been increased, the Federals having lost some of
their best leaders. Nathaniel Macon was again chosen Speaker.
The debates on the ratiﬁcation of the treaty were similar to those
over the Jay treaty of 1795, but parties were turned right round,
the Republicans using the old Federal, and the Federals the old
Anti-Federal logic. As observed above, the treaty was ratiﬁed
by the Senate Oct. 20, 1803, and the House made the appropria-
* For fuller account of this purchase, see ante, page 105.
312 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
tion to carry it into effect.* The Twelfth Amendment to the
Constitution changing the mode of Presidential election was
passed Dec. 12, 1803, and ratiﬁed by the States by Sept. 25,
1804. .The ﬁrst articles of impeachment under the new govern-
ment were voted by the House against Judge Pickering of the
United States District Court of New Hampshire, for occasional
drunkenness. The articles were sustained and the judge dis-
missed. Other articles were voted against Judge Chase, of Md.,
andrJ'udge Peters, of Pa., for arbitrary conduct in trying cases
under the Alien and Sedition Laws. The Federals took alarm
at these steps and boldly charged the Republicans with a design
to make places for their party judges, and to impair if not
destroy the judiciary. An amended tariff bill was passed
March 26, which, if anything, increased the average rate of
duties then existing. Congress adjourned March 27, 1804.
ELECTION OF 1804.—Burr had never secured Jefferson’s
conﬁdence after the suspicion that he had tried to barter with the
Federals for his defeat during the previously disputed Presi-
dential election. Besides he had then come too near the Presi-
dency to suit Jefferson’s idea of his own success. He was there-
fore sacriﬁced in the Congressional caucus, and Jefferson and
George Clinton of New York became the Republican nominees
for President. The nominees of the Federals were C. C. Pinck—
ney, S. C., and Rufus King, N. Y. The Federals were vanquished
in every State except Connecticut, Delaware and part of Mary-
land.
EIGHTH CONGRESS—Second Session—Met Nov. 5,
1804. The session was not complimentary to the Republican‘
majority. The impeachment trial of Judge Chase came on
under the articles previously drawn in the House. It took a
decided partisan turn and awakened the bitterest sentiment.
Burr, who was under a cloud for having killed Hamilton, and
who felt keenly the disappointment of defeat at the hands of '
his Republican friends, did vmuch, as presiding ofﬁcer at the
* Senate vote for ratiﬁcation was 24 to 7; and House vote for the appropriation
was 90 to 2 5, so that the purchase, notwithstanding its irregularity, was abundantly
conﬁrmed. '
THE UNITED STATES. ‘ 313
trial, by his refusal to hearken to the demands of his party, to
re-establish his lost reputation. This angered the Republicans
all the more, and when their determination to convict was met
by a square verdict of acquittal on all the charges, they proposed
several Constitutional amendments (none of which carried),
making impeachment, conviction and removal from ofﬁce easier.
The electoral, votes were counted in February. Jefferson and
Clinton had 162, and Pinckney and King, 14. The Eighth
Congress adjourned sine dz'e, March 3, 1804. The success—
ful Presidential candidates were sworn into ofﬁce March 4,
1804. '
V.
JEFFERSON’S SECOND ADMINISTRATION.
March 4, 1805—March 3, 1809.
THoMAs JEFFERSON, VA., Presz'denz'. GEoRGE CLINTON, N. Y.,
_ Vice-President.
Congresses. Sessions. ‘
1, December 2, 1805-April 21, 1806.
2, December 1, 1806—March 3, 1807.
1, October 26, 1807-April 25, 1808.
2, November 7, 1808—Mareh 3, 1809.
NINTH CONGRESS.
TENTH CONGRESS.
ELE C T ORAL. VOTE.*

Republicans. Federals.
Basis of TThos. Jeifer- G. Clin? C. Pinck- R. King:
States. 33,000. Votes. son, Va. ton, N. Y. ney, S. C. N. Y.
Connecticut . . . . . . . 7 9 . . . '. 9 9
Delaware . . . . . . . . . 1 3 . . . . 3 3
Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 6 - 6 . . . .
Kentucky......... 6 8 8 8 .. .
Maryland . . . . . . . . . 9 1 1 9 9 2 2
Massachusetts .. . . .. 17 19 19 19 . . . .
New Hampshire. . . . 5 7 7 7 . . . .
New Jersey . . . . . . .. 6 8 8 8 . . . .
New York . . . . . . .. 17 19 19 ~ 19 . . . .
North Carolina. . . . 12 I4 14 '14 . . .
Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 3 3 3 . . .
* While the nominations did not distinguish between President and Vice-Presi-
dent, the candidates were voted for as if they had been so distinguished, the Con-
stitntional amendment (the twelfth) having been ratiﬁed in September in time for
the vote to be cast under its provisions.
314 POLITICAL HISTORY.

Republicans. Federals.
Basis of Eros. {,eﬁ'er- G. Clin: C. Pinck- R. King,
States. 33,000. Votes. son, a. ton, N. Y. ney, S. C. . Y.
Pennsylvania . . .. I8 20 20 20 . . .
Rhode Island. . . . .. 2 4 4 4 . . . .
South Carolina.. . . . 8 10 10 10 . . . .
Tennessee . . . . . . . . 3 5 5 5 . . . .
Vermont........... 4 6 6 6 .. ..
Virginia . . . . . . . . . . 22 24 24 24 . . . .
Totals... . . . I. I}; 176 162 162 14 14.
THE CABINET
Secretary of State . . . . . . .james Madison, Va . . . . . ..Continued.
Secretary of Treasury. . . .Albert Gallatin, Pa. . . . . . “
Secretary of War.. . . . . . .Henry Dearborn, Mass. . . . “
Secretary of Navy . . . . . . .jacoh Crowninshield, Mass.
Attorney~General .. . . . . ..Robert Smith, Md.
Postmaster-General .. . . . ..Gideon Granger, Conn.
POLITICAL SI T UA T I ON.——The Congressional elections
had been nearly as disastrous to the Federals as the Presidential
election. They were strong only in New. England, and even
there Vermont had turned Republican. Federalism was clearly
moribund. The Republicans had the afﬁrmative. The times
were proliﬁc of new situations, which could be turned to popular
account. jefferson understood the art of keeping his party on a
happy vantage ground better than any statesman in it, and as he
had its entire conﬁdence, so far as the masses were concerned,
he exercised a control which was quite autocratic.
NINTH CONGRESS—First Session—Met Dec. 2, 1805.
Organized by re-electing Nathaniel Macon Speaker. Both
Houses strongly Republican. A notable event was the
estrangement of john Randolph, of Virginia, from the President.
His ambition to go as Minister to England had not been grati-
ﬁed, and he had failed also in his aspirations to be the leader of
the administration on the ﬂoor of Congress. He therefore with
a small following threw his strength to the Federals, and thus
augmented they became a brilliant, determined and useful mi-
nority. The Spanish Mississippi situation was still delicate. It
was decided that the best way to settle it was to buy out the re—
maining interest of Spain in our soil. The President was author-
ized to make the purchase, but it was not effected till 1819.
Though both England and France were violating the rights of
‘NOSHEIeIrIZII :IO GINOH EIIdl—O'YIHDLLNON
\\1Tlv‘?:‘:‘ \


315
316 POLITICAL ‘HISTORY OF
neutrals, the President would not sanction the building of an
American navy, but compromised on a system of gunboats,
which was much ridiculed by his opponents. Republican pars
tiality for France was shown by the passage of a measure pro-
hibiting the importation of English goods after Nov. 15,
1806. This was designed to be retaliatory of England’s violation
of the rights of neutrals. As France had been, and was still,
equally guilty, the blow might very justly have been aimed at
both. Not yet tired of efforts to Republicanize the Judiciary,
another attempt was made to clear out the old Federal incum-
bents, but it failed. A strained situation for the Republicans
grew out of the proposition to build a National Road from the
Potomac to the Ohio. Contrary to all their previous views of a
rigid construction of the Constitution, and in vivid contrast with
the notions of their school which prevailed for ﬁfty years after-
wards respecting internal improvement, they enacted to lay out
and build such road. An adjournment took place ‘April 21,
1806. -
NINTH CONGRESS—Second Session.——Met Dec. 1, 1806.
Duringthe vacation Burr’s enterprise of a Southwest Empire
became public, and the President had ordered his arrest. Infor-
mation of the scheme was laid before Congress, and the Senate
enacted to suspend the writ of habeas corpus for three months,
but the House did not concur. Financial management had been
such as to produce an excess of receipts over expenditures.
This excellent condition the President proposed to turn to the
account of the country by devoting the surplus to education and
national road and canal making. He was however too far in
advance, or outside, of his party in this matter to be able to per-
suade it to any such general undertaking. A revulsion of sen-
timent had set in on the discriminating act against England,
passed at the previous session, and the President was given
power to suspend the operation of the law till December, 1807.
Congress adjourned sine die, March 3, 1807.
BURR B UBBLE—v—In the early part of the year 1807 the
Burr bubble burst, and he returned, under arrest, to Virginia, the
scene of his plots, for trial. W'hat‘he designed to accomplish.
THE UNITED STATES. . 317
by his expedition down the Mississippi has never been accurately
known. His enemies regarded his scheme as treasonable, having
for its object the establishment of an empire in the Southwest so
as to control the commerce of the Mississippi. His friends-—
rather his excusers, for friends were hardly possible—gave him
the credit of a far-sighted enterprise to expel all foreign inﬂuence
from the region of the Gulf, provide an inviting ﬁeld for immi-
gration, and thus establish Federal sovereignty in a distant and
dangerous part of the public domain. However it may all be,
his trial was now (May, 1807) on at Richmond, before Chief
Justice Marshall. It was far more political than judicial. The
Federals, who had denounced the President’s order for arrest as
a usurpation of authority, now heaped personal invective on him
for his anxious letters to the District Attorney and his .open at-
tempts to inﬂuence the trial. Nothing, however, served to deter
Jefferson. He had no love for Burr, and, further, he felt that his
conviction was to be his own vindication for a procedure which
was so bitterly denounced as-arbitrary and without precedent.
The result was Burr’s acquittal for want of jurisdiction. The
defeat of the administration was humiliating in proportion to its
anxiety to impress the trial.
TENTH C ONGRESS—First Session—Met Oct. 26, 1807,
and organized by electing Joseph B. Barnum, Republican,
of Massachusetts, Speaker, there being again a Republican ma-
jority in both branches. An early session was called to consider
the attitude of England. The foreign outlook was by no means
‘assuring. The English treaty of 1806 had been rejected by the
President on his own responsibility, because, like the Jay treaty
of 1795, it left England at liberty to search American ships and
' impress American seamen. This the Federals stoutly opposed
as a bold assumption on the part of the President and because
they, being largely the commercial part of the community, were
most anxious for some kind of a treaty with England. But
above all the snubbing of England by the President led her to
stubborn and retaliatory renewal of her aggressions. In June,
1807, the Leopard, a British frigate, attacked the Chesapeake, an
American frigate, in Hampton Roads, and forcibly removed four
318 , POLITICAL HISTORY OF
seamen, ostensibly English. Here parties swung to and fro and
almost embraced. The Federals became indignant at England
for this outrage. The Republicans had grown lukewarm toward
France, who, though not so boldly, was practising the same in-
vasions of neutral rights. Our commerce suffered most from
English aggressions, only because England was stronger than
France on the water. So great was the destruction of our com-
merce that jefferson privately wrote how he had come to regard
“ England as a den of pirates and France as a den of thieves.”
EMBARGO AC Ii—England’s prohibition of all commerce
with France, a similar prohibition by France, blockades by each,
searches of neutrals by both, led the President to a proclamatio'
against British armed ships entering American ports. To sup.
port him in this was the object of the called session. The Re-
publicans passed his Embargo bill, against the opposition of the
Federals supported by the Randolph Republicans, or guz'ds, as
they were facetiously called, both of whom argued that it would
retroact on the United States and lead to more complete com-
mercial ruin than direct aggression by either England or France
had done. The Republicans averred it must be either an Em-
bargo or war, and chose the former, not without a modiﬁcation,
however, to the extent of making it operative during the Presi-
dent’s pleasure. The Embargo Act passed Dec. 21, 1807, by a
vote of 87 to 35 in the House and 19 to 9 in the Senate. It
prohibited American vessels sailing from foreign ports, foreign
vessels taking cargoes from American ports, and all coasters
from landing cargoes elsewhere than in the United States. It
proved to be a veritable boomerang, as the Federals had pre-
dicted. Congress adjourned April 2 5, 1808.
ELECTION OF I808.——Duri_ng the summer and autumn
of 1808 sentiment was shaping for the Presidential contest. For
a long time (since 1806) Randolph had been actively engineer-
ing the cause of Monroe, who was Minister to England, against
Madison, whom jefferson had been coaching for his successor.
But the Congressional caucus nominations at the called session
had resulted in the nomination of james Madison, Va., for Presi-
dent, and George Clinton, N. Y., for Vice-President, on the part
THE UNITED STATES. 31 9
of the Republicans, and C. C. Pinckney, S. C., for President, and
Rufus King, N. Y., for Vice-President, on the part of the Fed-
erals. Jefferson, like Washington, had been requested to accept
a third term but declined. The issue turned on the Embargo
Act, the Federals denouncing it as unconstitutional, as destructive
of American commerce, and as tending to help England as
against France—a cunning argument in view of previous Re-
publican favoritism for France, yet one whose truth was daily
becoming apparent. They carried their opposition to the verge
of physical resistance along the New England coast, and really
- lost sight of the political situation in their vehement desire to
force the repeal of a destructive and obnoxious law. The result
in November was a majority of Republican electors, though by
no means as large as that for Jefferson.
TENTH CONGRESS—Second Session—Met Nov. 7, 1808.
Opened with protests against English and French aggressions,
and an attempt of the Federals to repeal the odious Embargo
Act, whose operation had by this time driven them to commer-
cial despair. The President was informed by John Q. Adams,
who had resigned from the Legislature of his State (Mass) be-
cause his advocacy of the Embargo had drawn public censure,
that it would be impossible to further enforce the act in New
England, and that a scheme of open resistance was already in
course of preparation. However truthful this might have been—-
it was stoutly denied,——-and however much it may have been a
part of Adams’ wish to thus secure administrative favor—he was
soon after sent as minister to Russia,—-it is certain Jefferson
changed front on the question, and with him the entire Repub-
lican party. The bill was repealed, the repeal to operate on and
after March 4, 1809, and a simple Non-Intercourse Act substi-
tuted. The Republicans even went so far as to pronounce in
favor of an American navy, and full protection of American
rights on the high seas. Had this wonderful surrender taken
place a few months earlier, the Federals must have swept the
country in the Presidential contest. But it was shrewdly post-
poned till after the verdict had been recorded.
The electoral votes were counted in February. Madison had
320 - POLITICAL HISTORY OF
for President 122, and George Clinton 6. Pinckney had for
President 47. For Vice-President Clinton had 113, King 47,
and 15 were scattering. Congress adjourned sine die March 4,
1809. Madison and Clinton were sworn into ofﬁce March 4,
1809.
VI.
MADISON’S FIRST ADMINISTRATION.
March 4, I809—March 3, 1813.
JAMES MADISON, VA., President. GEORGE CLINToN, N. Y., Vice-
President.
Congresses. Sessions. _
' I, May 22, 1809—June 28, 1809, extra session.
ELEVENTH CONGRESS. 2, November 27, 1809—May I, 1810.
3, December 3, ISlo—March 3, 1811.
1, November 4, 1811—July 6, 1812.
2, November 2, I812—March 3, 1813.
ELECTORAL VOTE.*
TWELFTH CoNGREss.

Republicans. Federals.
Basis of j. Madi- G. Clinton; 6:. c. Pinck- R. 15;;
States. 33,000. Votes. son, Va. N. Y. ney, S. C. N. Y.
Connecticut . . . . . . . 7 9 . . . . 9 9
Delaware . . . . . . . . . I 3 . . . . 3 3
Georgia . . . . . . . . .. 4 6 6 6 . . . .
Kentucky......... 6 8 7 7 .. Ivacancy.
Maryland . . . . . . . . . 9 11 9 9 2 2
Massachusetts . . . . . I7 19 . . . . 19 19
New Hampshire.. .. 5 7 . . . . 7 7
New Jersey........ 6 8 8 8 ..
New York . . . . . . .. 17 19 13 13 Se. Sc.
North Carolina. . . . 12 I4 11 11 3 3
Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . 3 3 Sc. . . . .
Pennsylvania . . . . . . I8 20 20 20 . . . .
Rhode Island.. . . .. 2 4 . . . . 4 4
South Carolina. . . . 8 10 10 10 . . .
Tennessee . . . . . . . . 3 5 5 5 . . . .
Vermont . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 6 ‘ . . . . Sc.
Virginia . . . . . . . . . . 22 24 24 24 . . . .
Totals... .....142 176 122 113 I7— 71-7-
THE CABINEYTT
Secretary of State . . . . . . . .Robert Smith, Md. -
Secretary of Treasury. . . . .Albert Gallatin, Pa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Continued.
* Of those marked scattering Clinton received 6 for President, and for Vice-Presi-
dent Madison received 3, John Langdon 9, and James Monroe 3. '
1' The Cabinets as here found are those ﬁrst organized by the incoming administra-
tions. For the changes and all incumbents see the respective department heads under \
“ Ruling Nationally.”
THE UNITED STATES. ‘ 321
T he Cabinet—Continued.
Secretary of War . . . . . . . .William Eustis, Mass.
Secretary of Navy . . . . . . . .Paul Hamilton, S. C.
Attorney-General . . . . . . . .C. A. Rodney, Pa.. . . . . . . . . . .Continued.
Postmaster-General . . . . . . . Gideon Granger, Conn . . . . . . . . . . “
POLITICAL SI T UA T I ON.—The Republicans were on the
eve of an entire change of policy. Jefferson had adroitly handled
the old Federal policy of neutrality so as to keep a show of ﬁrm-
ness, and at the same time avoid armed conﬂict with England
or France. On the score of economy he opposed high taxes,
a navy, an army. Madison fell heir to this policy. When
Erskine, British Minister, mistakingly informed him that Eng-
land desired peace, Madison immediately suspended the Non-
Intercourse Act, as he was authorized by its terms to do, so far
as England was concerned. But when England repudiated the
conduct of Erskine, the President had to restore the operation
of the act. Whether this was sheer double-dealing on the part
of England, or only a Republican trick to inﬂuence sentiment,
as the Federals claimed, from that time on the drift toward war
was too strong for the Republicans to resist. The schism in the
ranks of the party left an active minority to operate on the strict
party ﬂanks. It was a time when a body of new leaders, active
and strong, could walk away with the organization and shift its
ancient policy. From this time on, too, we begin to hear popular
mention of the word Democrat. As admiration for France, which
had made the word Republican popular, subsided, as Jacobin
and Democrat were no longer offensively identical, and further
as there were two schools of thought in the Republican ranks,
one newer and more aggressive than the other, it became com-
mon for the older to designate themselves as Democrats, that is,
the true Republicans, the primitive Democratic-Republicans._
ELEVENTH C ON GRESS—Extra Session.--Met May 22,
1809, with a Republican majority. Organized by re-electing
Joseph B. Varnum, Mass., Speaker. The only matter before it
was the President’s suspension and reassertion of the Non-Inter-
course Act. After afﬁrming his action Congress adjourned, June
28, 1809.
ELEVENTH C ONGRESS—F irst Regular Session.-—Met
21
322 ' POLITICAL HISTORY OF
Nov. 27, 1809. The Non-Intercourse act was continued, and
the British Minister was censured for contradictory statements
and obtrusive conduct. France had shrewdly shaped her com-
mercial policy so as to’ receive all the beneﬁts of the American
position. This galled England all the more, and as a conse-
quence her attitude became more hostile. In advocacy of her
right to Search American vessels for deserted British seamen,
she announced as ﬁnal the doctrine, “Once an Englishman, al-
ways an Englishman.” During the session the Republicans had
a large majority and shaped legislation without much dissent
from the Federals. Adjourned May I, 1810.
ELEVENTH CONGRESS—Second Session._—Met Dec. 3,
1810. The Non-Intercourse Act was repealed as to France and
continued as to England. This threw both England and Amer-
ica on their mettle. But the administration was not yet done
with its economic and peace ideas. The National Bank, char-
tered in 1791 for twenty years, was asking for a new lease of
life. It had, as we have seen, secured the favor of a charter
through a momentary spasm of liberal construction on the part
of strict interpreters of the Constitution. Such a spasm was
_ not now on, though it had so many Republican friends in both
branches that the bill granting a new charter was defeated by
only one vote in the House and by the casting vote of the Vice-
President in the Senate. It therefore wound up its business and
ceased to exist. The attitude of Federal and Republican on
this question of a national bank became, in after years, that of
Whig and Democrat on the same question. Congress adjourned
sz'ne dz'e, March 3, 1811.
T WELFT H C ONGRESS—First Session—Met Nov. 4,
181 I. Either the administration must accept the idea of forcible
resistance to England or go to the wall. American vessels, es—
timated at 900, had been captured since 1803. American com-
merce had become a thing of the past. It would not do to allow
the idea to grow further that the Republicans were aiming a blow ,
at commercial New England by persistence in their suicidal
policy of dilly-dallying diplomacy and devouring peace. A new
order of men came to the front. Henry Clay, Ky., was elected
THE UNITED STATES. I 323
Speaker. John C. Calhoun, S. C., became an ambitious and able
leader in the House, as did William H. Crawford, Ga., in the
Senate. Fortunately none of these new leaders, fully imbued
with the war spirit, thoroughly determined on a change from
the economic, hesitating, and now cowardly, policy of Jefferson
and Madison, were mistrusted by Madison. Clay had been his
ﬁrm friend, and had come out of a two-term career in the Senate
the better to lead on the wider plane of the House. Therefore
their work of swinging the administration and the party from
its peace moorings was comparatively easy. During the session,
and against the opposition of the Federals and a Republican
minority, bills for increasing the navy and organizing the militia
were passed. Whatever scruples the President may still have
had about accepting the situation and afﬁrming this heterodox
legislation was overcome by the intimation that his renomination
depended on his acquiescence. He therefore fell fully in with
the new leaders, and made his expose of the Henry documents *
whichso outraged the sentiment of New England, but which
brought from Congress the action designed, viz., a resolution de-
nunciatory of England for an attempt to divide a friendly nation.
This was followed by an Embargo on American shipping for
ninety days, which of course brought an announcement from
the English Minister (May 30, 1812), which was supported by
the Parliament, that England would not change her policy
toward neutrals.
DECLARATION OF WAR—A message from the Presi-
dent, June I, 1812, referred to a committee, brought a report
_which, as a summary of grievances, complained of the British
orders in council, of the unfair system of blockades of the French
ports, of the refusal to settle claims for damages, and, last but
not least, of the searching of American ships and impressment
of American seamen.‘ It recommended a declaration of war. A
*The President made this expose in a special message. The documents, he
said, he bought of one John Henry for $50,000. They purported to show how
Henry had been a- Canadian agent sent to influence New England Federals to join
their cause with that of England. The British Minister denied all knowledge
of such agent or agency.
324. POLITICAL msroav or
war act was consequently passed and promptly signed by the
President (June 18, 1812), who had by this time received a second
nomination for the Presidency and who was acting in strict con-
cert with the war wing of his party. At ﬁrst the declaration of
war was received with applause. But a reaction soon set in.
The Federals of New England published a protest against it as
sectional and not national, the act of a party and not of the
country. Strictly construing the Constitution, Massachusetts
and Connecticut refused to permit their militia to go beyond the
boundary of their States till an actual invasion had taken place.
To answer them the Republicans became liberal interpreters of
the Constitution and would obliterate State lines and forget all
about State rights in order to present a solid national front
to the foe. Louisiana had become a State in the Union, April
30,1812.
TARIFF OF 1812.—Madison had urged in his message a re-
vision of the Tariff. The new leaders took it up. Calhoun and
Lowndes favored Clay's new doctrine that the Protective idea
ought not any longer to be secondary to the Revenue idea.
South Carolina was then a high protection State, England hav-
ing levied exorbitant duties on raw cotton. Here was a marvel-
lous shifting of party doctrine. The Republicans became such
liberal interpreters of the Constitution that they not only swung
to the Protective notion, but actually used the report of Hamil-
ton, which brought the earliest Tariff acts, in vindication of their
position. The Federals, in their weakness, forgetfulness of party
traditions and determination to see nothing good in the adminis-
tration, swung clear over to the abandoned strict construction
doctrine of their political enemies, and through such as Webster
(then in the House) and others opposed the‘ Protective thought.
Sentiment on this Tariff act ought to be carefully noted. It was
the beginning of that division in the Republican party which
prepared the way for “ The American Idea,” for “Internal Im-
provement,” and for the Whig organization, which was Clay’s
outlet from the strict construction columns. Indeed, even at
this session a bill for internal improvement was passed under
Clay's leadership, which Madison vetoed. The tariff act was
THE UNITED STATES. 325
passed July 1, 1812, and it marks the highest rates of duty
reached from the foundation of the goveriiment till 1842. Sugar
went from 2% cents per pound to 5; coffee from 5 cents per
pound to 10; tea from 18 cents per pound to 36; pig iron from
17% per cent. to 30 ; bar iron from 17% per cent. to 30 ; glass
from 22% per cent. to 40; manufactures of cotton from 17%
per cent. to 30; woollens from 17 per cent. to 30; silk from 15
per cent. to 25. Congress adjourned July 6, 1812.
ELECTION OF 1812.—We have seen the conditions upon
which Madison was permitted to become a candidate for a second
term. But he still had opposition. De Witt Clinton, N. Y., who
would have been the candidate in case Madison had declined to
wheel into the war line, refused to be bound by the bargain. The
other Republican States had become jealous of Virginia’s claim
to be “the home of Presidents.” Clinton moved on this line,
secured the nomination of- the New York Legislature and issued
an address (“ Clinton’s Platform”) protesting against caucus
nominations of Presidential candidates, the continuance of public
men in ofﬁce for long periods, the claim of particular States to
monopolize principal ofﬁces, and “that ofﬁcial regencywhich
prescribed tenets of political faith.” His followers became
known as Clintonian Democrats.
Madison was nominated in May, 1812. John Langdon was
nominated for Vice-President, but declining on account of age,
Elbridge Gerry, Mass., was substituted. The Federals, taking
advantage of the schism in the Republican ranks, met in caucus
in New York city and nominated De Witt Clinton for President,
with Jared Ingersoll, Pa., for Vice-President.* The election
came off in November. A large majority of Republican electors
was chosen. The Congressional elections resulted also in a
majorityof Republican members favorable to the war.
T WELFT H C ON GRESS—Second Session—Met Nov. 2,
1812. There was a slight adjustment of parties on account of
* Eleven States were represented in this caucus or convention. It was a bitterly
partisan body, determined to see nothing good in any act of Madison, and as an
evidence of its desperation, willing to support a soured ‘Republican in order to de-
feat the regular Republican nominee.
326 ' POLITICAL HISTORY OF
the war. Some Republicans voted with the Peace Federals, but
they were more than' offset by War Federals voting with the
straight Republicans. There was but little opposition from any
source to anincrease of the navy, which had already won the
right to be encouraged by proving a match for the best equipped
ships of England. Other measures of war were carried by Re-
publican votes. The count of the electoral vote was made in
February, and showed 128 for Madison and 89 for Clinton. For
Vice-President 131 for Gerry and 86 for Ingersoll. Congress
adjourned March 3, 1813. The candidates elect were sworn into
ofﬁce, March 4, 1812. ‘
VII.
MADISON’S SECOND ADMINISTRATION.
March 4, 1813—March 3, 1817.
jAMEs MADISON, VA., Preszdent. ' ELBRIDGE GERRY, MAss., Vice-
President.
Congresses. Sessions.
1, May 24, 1813—August 2, 1813, extra session.
THIRTEENTH CONGRESS. 2, December 6, 1813—April 18, 1814.
3, September 19, 1814—March 3, 1815.
1, December 4, ISIS—April 30, 1816.
2, December 2, I816—March 3, 1817.
ELECTORAL VOTE.
FOURTEENTH CONGRESS.

Republicans. Fed. or Clinton Dem.
Basis of _T'Madi- Elbridge Ger: [De Witt jared IngerI
States. 35,000. Vote. son, Va. ry, Mass. Clinton,N.Y. 5011, Pa.
Connecticut . . . . . . . 7 9 . . . 9 9
Delaware......... 2' 4 .. .. 4 4
Georgia . . . . . . . . . . 6 8 8 8 . . . .
Kentucky . . . . . . . . . 10 12 12 12 . .
Louisiana . . . . . . . . . I 3 3 3 . .
Maryland . . . . . . . . . 9 I I 6 6 5
Massachusetts. . . . .. 2o 22 . . 2 22 20
New Hampshire. . . 6 8 I 7
New jersey . . . . . . . . 6 8 . . . . 8 8
New York . . . . . . . . 27 29 . . . . 29 29
North Carolina. . . . I3 15 15 15 . . .
Ohio.‘ . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 8 7 7 - . . 1 Vacancy.
Pennsylvania . . . . . . 23 25 25 25 . . ., .
Rhode Island. . . . .. 2 4 . . . . 4 4
South Carolina. . ‘.'. 9 1 1 1 1 I 1 . . . .
Tennessee . . . . . . . . 6 8 8 8 . . .
Vermont........... 6 _ 8 8 8 ,,
Virginia. . . . . . . . 23 . 25 25 25
al:
Totals. . . . . .382 218 128 T371- '8;
THE UNITED STATES. 327
THE CABINET.
Secretary of State . . . . . . . . . .James Monroe, Va . . . . . . . .Continued.
Secretary of Treasury.. . . . . ..Albert Gallatin, Pa.. . . . . “
Secretary .of War . . . . . . . . . . .John Armstrong, N. Y. . . . “
Secretary of Navy . . . . . . . . . .William Jones, Pa . . . . . . . .. “
Attorney-General. . . . . . . . . . .William Pinckney, Md. . . .. “
Postmaster-General . . . . . . . . .Gideon Granger, Conn. . . .. “
THIR TEEN T H C ON GRESS—Extra Session.———Called May
24, 1813, to provide means for the war. House organized by re-
electing Henry Clay, Ky., Speaker. I Republican majority greatly
reduced in both House and Senate, the vote on the Speakership
being 89 to 54, though the latter were not all Federals, but partly
anti-war Republicans. In the Senate there was a strong faction
of anti-administration Republicans. After meeting the object of
its call the Congress adjourned, Aug. 2, 1813.
WAR SEN T IMEN T.—It was already manifest that the war
was destined to be unpopular with the country. Do their best
the Republicans could not keep up a furore respecting it. The
Federal sentiment, still strong in the Eastern States, was pro-
nouncedly against it. The Embargo, while it may not have
been designed as such, was a cruel blow at the centres of com-
merce. The peace faction in the Republican ranks was grow?
ing more out-spoken. England, in order to encourage a wider
division of sentiment between the Eastern and other States, had
actually gone so far as to exempt them from her blockade of the
Atlantic coast, and it was charged by the Republicans that at
the port of New London, Conn., the departure ‘of American ves-
sels was secured, notwithstanding the Embargo, by means of
blue light signals to the English blockading ﬂeet.
T HIRT EENT H C ONGRESS—First Regular Session—Met
Dec. 6, 1813. Financial subjects, relating to the war, were chieﬂy
uppermost. But in view of alleged violations of the Embargo
Act by New England mariners a stricter act was passed, embrac-
ing all ships, large and small. The war was in the midst of its
greatest activity.‘ Congress adjourned April 18, 1814. , .
THIRTEENT H CONGRESS—Second Session—Called as
early as Sept. 19, 1814, to consider negotiations for peace which
had been begun in August, soon after the 'capture and burning
328 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
of Washington by‘the English, and when it had become appa-
rent that the provisions to meet vigorous and protracted war
were as inadequate as was the popular sentiment to further sus-
tain it. England had gotten rid of her home adversary, Napo-
leon, and was at liberty to direct her undivided attention to
America. She had long since revoked her orders in council and
was only insisting on her right to search American ships and
impress her deserting seamen. The administration, in view of
the entire situation, had therefore wisely instructed its commis-
sioner abroad to negotiate for peace without insisting on rectiﬁca-
tion of the “ search and impressment ” grievances. But as this
showed weakness, the English‘ grew bold, and would not only
have no American ﬂeets or military posts along the Great Lakes,
but a permanent Canadian barrier erected in the shape of an
Indian Confederacy.
HARTFORD CON VENT ION.—-The administration and its
active Republican support were.in a quandary. The weakness
of ‘abject surrender must be confessed, or resort must be had to
those reserved powers which strict interpreters of the Constitu-
tion had ‘ever denied to the government. The War Department
favored a more imposing and effective army, by means of a
draft and the enlistment of minors. The Navy Department pro-
posed to impress seamen, after the English fashion. Every
effort was made by the administration to recover lost ground,
put on a front worthy the American name, and ﬁght the war to
a successful end. But it was too late in the day. The Presi-
dent’s own party could not be imbued with his suddenly assumed
, liberal construction notions. His radical war measures were
either defeated or coldly favored. Beyond, the situation was
appalling. England held vantage ground in Maine and along
the northern border. New England had been almost entirely
neglected by the government. Every war measure thus far had
been more destructive to her industry and wealth, and more dis-
paraging to her people, than to the overt enemy. Massachu-
setts invited a conference (Oct, 1814) of the New England
States “to confer on the subject of their public grievances.”
This met at Hartford in December, 1814, and sat for three
THE UNITED STATES. 329
weeks. It was the historic Hartford Convention, so odious to
Republicans, ‘so dear to Federals. Its secret proceedings
aroused suspicion and drew on its members and their cause a
denunciation than which nothing could be more bitter, and a
proscription even, which was the knell of their party importance.
So far were the charges of treasonable design carried that, years
afterwards, it was deemed proper to break the seal of secresy
and publish the entire proceedings, but too late, of course, to
3 remove the stigma which inﬂamed partisanship had fastened to
the event.*
WELCOME PEA CE.—-The treaty of Ghent had been signed
Dec. 14, 1814, and in February, 1815, the text reached the
country. Notwithstanding the fact that it was a barren paper,
scarcely touching on the causes of the war and securing not one
of the objects for which it had been declared, it was received with
universal rejoicing. The President felt that it was a happy
escape for himself and party from dire ﬁnancial straits, and the
Federals regarded it as the lifting of a heavy load from our
commercial industry and the end of a farcical and iniquitous
proceeding throughout. But the latter never escaped from the
political issues the war had raised. Their decay, as a power,
was, thenceforth rapid. Peace eventuated in a return of pros-
perity and plenty to the land.
*Juclged by the proceedings the convention was not only timely and orderly, but
representative of grievances which were hardly to be borne, and which ought never
to have existed. It was simply unfortunate in its manner of deliberation, and in the
fact that the close of the war shut off public presentation of its protest and resolu-
tions to the government. The resolutions opposed (1) drafts, conscriptions or'im-
pressments not authorized by the Constitution. (2) A plan whereby the respective
States or sections might defend themselves against the enemy and pay for the same,
the central government to reimburse them. ( 3) A full militia for each State, with
power to detach a portion at the request of other States, when invaded. (4) Seven
amendments recommended to the Constitution: (1) Representatives and direct
taxes to be apportioned among the States in proportion to the number of free
persons. (2) Admission of States only on vote of two-thirds of both Houses.
( 3) No embargo beyond sixty days. (4) No interdiction of commercial intercourse
except by two-third votes of both Houses of Congress. (5) No declaration of war
except by vote of two-thirds of both Houses. (6) No naturalized person to be
eligible to ‘Congress. (7) No second term for the President, nor any President from
the same State twice in succession. A ﬁfth resolve provided for the reassembling
of the convention in case these resolutions did not bring redress.
330 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
Congress had easy work the balance of the session, repealing
war legislation and reducing everything, except the navy, to a
peace footing. It adjourned sz'ne dz'e, March 3, 1815.
POLITICAL RES UL T S.——The war had been a lesson to the
Republicans. It taught them that however captivating-the strict
construction notions of their party had been, and however
pleasant it was to indulge them as theories in time of peace,
exigencies might arise when they would prove a source of weak-
ness to their professors. As a consequence, they had advanced
up to the old Federal plane, and many of them were ﬁrmly
entrenched on it. The Federals, having no cohesive force, not
even a reason for their name, after their mission in successfully
establishing the government had ended, and after the acceptance
of the fact of its existence as well as their cardinal principles,
by the Republicans, ﬂoundered about on the negative of issues
presented by their opponents, and at last were ready to dis-
integrate. It might be said that so far as the Old lines went,
there was ‘no political party after the war. The Federal name
was hardly used or usable. The Republican name was used to
hold together a sentiment which was widely variant from and far
in advance of its authors.
FOURTEENTH CONGRESS—First Session—Met- Dec. 4,
1815. The situation had enured to the beneﬁt of the Republi-
cans, and they. had a pronounced majority in both branches.
The House organized by re-electing Henry Clay, Speaker.
April 27, 1816, an amended tariff act was passed, which reduced
the duties imposed by the act of 1812. Discussion of it brought
a distinct announcement of the idea of protecting the Ameri-
can industries which had sprung up since the war and
whose existence was threatened by the importation of cheaper
English goods. But this idea failed to inﬂuence the bill favor-
ably. .
A NEW BANK—Madison had vetoed a bill to recharter a
National Bank, only the year before (1815). Clay took the
ground that the experiences of the war showed the necessity for
a national currency and for a national ﬁnancial agency like a
bank. Though this was again counter to the traditional strict
THE UNITED STATES. 33]
construction views of the Republicans, and though it met the
determined opposition of the once liberal construction Federals,
and of a minority of the Republicans, a National Bank charter
was authorized, April, 1816, to run ‘for twenty years, or until
1836. Strange to say it was modeled on that of [791 which the
Anti-Federals had unsuccessfully opposed, and on that of 1811,
which the Republicans had successfully opposed, and the argu-
ments for its support were a repetition of those framed and used
by Hamilton, together with those supplied by the success of his
ﬁrst ﬁnancial experiment. The bill was promptly signed by the
President, and a new National Bank became a fact. The rest
of the session was consumed in legislation on internal affairs.
Congress adjourned April 30, 1816.
ELECTION OF 1816.—The administration favored James
Monroe, Va., then Secretary of State, for President. The Con-
gressional caucus of the last session carried out its wishes, but
against an earnest party protest, which secured ﬁfty-four votes in
the caucus for W. H. Crawford, Ga. to sixty-ﬁve for Monroe.
This action did not satisfy Burr and some other extremists, who
attempted to break the caucus nomination by denouncing the
caucus system, opposing Virginia’s attempts to dominate the
politics of the country, and ﬁnally favoring the nomination of
Andrew Jackson. The original nomination stood, and that of
Daniel D. Tompkins, N. Y., was added to it as Vice-President.
The Federals nominated Rufus King, N. Y., but divided their
votes for Vice-President. The result in November was their
overwhelming defeat, they carrying only Massachusetts, Con-
necticut and Delaware.
FOUR TEEN TH C ON GRESS—Se'cond Session—Met Dec.
2, 1816. No measures of party interest came up. The Electoral
count, in February, showed 18 3 votes for Monroe for President,
and 34 for King; 183 for Tompkins for Vice-President, and 34
scattering. Indiana was admitted as a State Dec. 11, 1816.
Congress adjourned sine die, March 3, 1817. The President and
Vice—President were sworn into ofﬁce March 4, 1817.
' 332 _POLITICAL HISTORY.
VIII.
MONROE’S FIRST ADMINISTRATION.
March 4, 1817—March 3, 1821.
JAMES MoNRoE, VA., President. DANIEL D. ToMPKINs, N. Y.,
Vice-President.
Congresses. Sessions.
1, December 1, 1817-April 20, 1818.
2, November 16, I818-March 3, 1819.
1, December 6, 1819—May 15, 1820.
2, November'13, 1820—March 3, 1821.
ELECTORAL VOTE.*
F IFTEEN'I‘H CoNGREss.
SIXTEENTH CoNoREss.

Republican. Federal.
, Daniel D.
States. Basis of James Mon- Tompkins, Rufus King, No nom-
35,ooo. Votes. roe, Va. N. Y. N. Y. ination.
Connecticut . . . . . . . . 7 9 . . . . 9 sc.
Delaware . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 . . . . 3 sc.
Georgia............ 6 8 8 8 . ..
Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . I 3 3 3 . . .
Kentucky . . 10 12 12 12 .. ..
Louisiana.......... 1 3 3 3 - .. ..
Maryland........... 9 11 8 8 .. ..
Massachusetts . . . . . . . 20 22 . . . . 22 sc.
New Hampshire. . . 6 8 8 8 . . .
New Jersey . . . . . . . . 6 8 8 8 . . . .
New York . . . . . . . . . . 27- 29 29 29 . . . .
North Carolina...... 13 15 I5 15 .. ..
Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8 8 8 . . . .
Pennsylvania . . . . . . . 23- 25 25 25 . . . .
Rhode Island . . . . . . 2 4 4 4 . . . .
South Carolina. . . .. 9 11 11 II . . . .
Tennessee.......... 6 8 _8 8 .. ..
Vermont . . . . . . . . . . 6 8 8 8 . . . .
Virginia............ 23 25 25 25 .. ..
Totals . . . . . . . . . 183 221 183 183 34
THE CABINET
Secretary of State . . . . . . . . . .John Quincy Adams, Mass.
Secretary of Treasury. . . . . . ._Wm. H. Crawford, Ga . . . . . . . . .Continued.
Secretary of War. . . . . . . . . . .George Graham, Va.
Secretary of Navy . . . . . . . . . .B. W. Crowningshield, Mass. . . . “
Attorney-General . . . . . . . . . .Richard _Rnsh, Pa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “
Postmaster-General . . . . . . . . . R. J. Meigs, Ohio.. . . . . . . . . . . . “
THE ‘INA UGURAL.-—Monroe ushered in what was popu-
larly known as “The era of good feeling.” The asperities of
* There were 4 vacancies. Of the scattering votes, John E. Howard received
22; James Ross, 5; John Marshall, 4; Robert G. Harper, 3.
===========_=_=_:=,_=_=:_=____:_====_===:=:__=_=._____==___=_:_=_=_======_==___===:===_=_.======_===_=====_==_==_=_==_=_=_:== . _=_..

H......_ ._______=___=_____._________======_______==___=__=_e======____=____=_____=_.______=
A a . r . . .. - 1r In
_ . A .. . . . . .. v v‘ . . .4 r.
'llllllllllIIllllllllllllliIlllllllllllll‘llllllllllll'lllll
“real;mulllmllllmullmlnmmmmlmlImmlmtmlututummmi
u" -
.4’),

lummtmmuuImimumummnmumi1mmmImmmlmmmmunmtmlmm
I
. ...ea...
. new...
.Mimmlmmmmuuummuml“um


'. l
lllllllllllllll' L '
lllllllllllllllIlllllllllllllllllilllllllllllll
s=.__.==_____==__=_______=§_______=__________=__M_=_._.__W__==_____==_,.=.=____=__A___._==__=.==_____=====._____= .1
333
PRESIDENTS FROM 1817 To 1841.
334 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
the war were passing away. Party differences were subsiding,
or rather there were no longer' two confronting parties, for the
last election had settled the matter of organized Federal oppo-
sition. That party passed away, seeing its primary glory repeated
in the triumph of the Republicans, and many of its ruling tenets
adopted by them as a matter of principle, or put into practice by
them as a matter of necessity. Monroe’s inaugural was so
liberal in tone that it satisﬁed men, of whatever shade of political
opinion. Like Washington, he made a tour of the Northern
States (june, 1817), which added greatly to his popularity. To
help “The Era,” business was meeting with a rebound, and the
people were prosperous amid most welcome peace.
FIFT EEN T H C ON GRESS—First Session—Met Dec. I,
1817, with a large Republican majority. The Federals were so
few in number, or so lukewarm in opposition, that the House
organized by the unanimous election of Clay to the Speakership.
Discussion of the Tariff resulted in extending the act of 1816
for seven years. Propositions to use the dividends of the
National Bank, instead of appropriations, and to recognize the
revolting colonies of Spain in South America, as Republics,
were voted down. Mississippi entered‘ the Union Dec. 10, 1817.
Congress adjourned April 20, 1818. .
THE RECESS—During the summer jackson made his
celebrated invasion of Florida, then belonging to Spain, in order
to punish the Indians who had retreated from Georgia. Here
he captured and put to death the notorious Arbuthnot and Am~
brister, whom he charged as outlaws. They happened to be
British subjects, and this fact, united with the danger of re-open-
ing the feuds of the late war, made the matter a delicate one to
handle. But the most important political feature of the time
was the shaping of sentiment in the direction of a new party.
Monroe had followed the new school of Republican leaders, as
Clay and Calhoun, through their advocacy of a Protective Tariff,
but he could not follow Clay in his advocacy of internal improve-
. ment, though his ﬁrst inaugural inclined to it. Clay’s position
had always been conspicuous and his leadership pronounced.
He and Calhoun had changed the tardy and damaging peace
THE UNITED STATES. - 335
policy of Madison to one of war, and Clay especially had stood
head and shoulders above all others in advocating a stronger
army and navy. During the last session he had gone still
further, and suggested a new use for the Bank, as well as a new
foreign policy with reference to the South American Republics.
The Federals and liberal Republicans looked with favor on his
advanced doctrines, but the old school of strict interpreters
looked on them with alarm. These latter defeated his favorite
measures of the last session, and thereby threw him on his .own
never failing resources. It was more than ever evident that the
germs of a new party were pushing in the loins of the dominant
organization. I ‘
FIFT EEN T H C ON GRESS—Second Session—Met Nov. 16,
1818. The matter of Jackson's conduct of the Indian (Seminole)
war came conspicuously forward. It was proposed to censure
him for his execution of Arbuthnot and Ambrister, but after long
debate, the matter was postponed indeﬁnitely by the Senate,
though a majority against censure was obtained in the House.
As long as Jackson lived, his opponents refused to be quieted
about what they thought an arbitrary and high-handed pro-
cedure. The controversy resulted in one good. The govern-
ment, tired of the ever recurring complications with the Indians,
Spaniards, and British adventurers in Florida, determined to buy
the territory, authority to do so having been given by Congress
years before (1806). Then came one of those unaccountable
blunders which, supplemented in after years by the pride of
undoing and by the ﬁerce sectional and aggrandizing spirit of
the time, cost the country the sacriﬁces of a war. In considera-
tion of $5,000,000 and the abandonment of all claims to French
Louisiana west of the Sabine by the United States, Spain ceded
Florida, Feb. 22, 1819. West of the Sabine meant Texas, and
the recovery of Texas meant the Mexican war (1846).
MISSOURI AND SLA VERY—Illinois became a State of
the Union Dec. 3, 1818. Long before this the policy of off—
setting a free by a slave State prevailed. This at ﬁrst was de-
signed to keep up a balance of parties and to take full and legal
‘ advantage of the Constitutional clause which gave representa-
336 ' POLITICAL HISTORY OF
tion to three-ﬁfths of the slave population. But it had gotten to
mean vastly more, as sentiment divided on the rightfulness of
slavery, and was to mean more and more as time went on. Mis-
souri asked the Congress to admit her as a State. The one
thing unusual about her situation was that she was beyond the
Mississippi, whither the recognized lines of division—Mason and
Dixon line of 36° 30’, and the Ohio River—between the Slave and
Free States did not extend. An amendment was offered to the .
bill to admit her, drawn in the language of the ordinance of 1787
for the government of “The Territory Northwest of the Ohio
River,” prohibiting slavery or involuntary servitude in Missouri,
except as a punishment for crime. The amendment was so sud-
den and unexpected that parties sat for a time with bated breath
and never recovered their lines on the question. It became a
test of Free States against Slave States, and the former proved
strongest-in the House, carrying the amendment. The latter
proved strongest in the Senate, and defeated it. This was the
injection of slavery into politics, and the beginning of its ex-
tinction. A common, or almost, Colonial existence for it had
been gradually narrowed to a line, south of which it had come
to be regarded civilly as a necessary and entailed evil, industri-
ally as a source of proﬁt, and politically as a potential force.*
The Congress adjourned sine die, March 3, 1819.
SIX TEEN T H C ONGRESS—First Session—Met Dec. 6,
1819. Clay was again elected Speaker by an almost unanimous
vote. The advance made by his liberal construction views may
be measured by the passage in the House of a Tariff bill which
* Historically, the ﬁrst sectional debate over slavery arose in 1793, on the presen_
tation of a petition to Congress from a “ Philadelphia Society,” appealing to it “ to
use its inﬂuence to stop the traffic in slaves.” At that time members arrayed them-
selves in debate, not according to party, but according to States, and some Southern
debaters, of ultra turn, went so far as to protest, even to the extent of civil war,
against interference with slavery. All saw the possibility of the question becoming,
at no remote date, a political if not a dangerously partisan and sectional one. The
apprehensions of the hour were quieted by the passage of the ﬁrst Fugitive Slave
law, Feb. 12, 1793. This date is signiﬁcantly coincident with the invention ‘of
Whitney’s cotton gin, which gave to slave labor a proﬁt never before realized, and
cemented it into an institution to be defended at all hazard.
THE UNITED STATES. 337
deﬁnitely afﬁrmed the Protective idea, but which the Senate re-
jected. As the discussion of this bill was dispassionate, and the
large Republican majority fairly divided on it, it is a proper
place to get such a view of the politics of the Tariff as will ex-
tend even to the present day. The Protective idea as projected
into the Tariff legislation of that time was justiﬁed by those who
favored a liberal construction of the Constitution. They found
in the power “to regulate commerce and provide for the com—
mon defence” a warrant not only to raise necessary revenue by
means of a Tariff, but a right to make that Tariff a protective
one, that is, a means of fostering domestic manufactures and
thus creating a home market forhome agricultural products.
As a corollary to this hung, or grew, the plan of Internal Im-
provement, which depended not more on a liberal construction
of the Constitution, but which was thought by its opponents to
belong to the States. On the contrary, those who clung to a
rigid construction of the Constitution granted the right of the
government to provide for its expenses and pay ‘its debts by
means of money raised by a Tariff on imports, but they regarded
a Tariff, so arranged as to protect American manufactures against
foreign competition, as a usurpation of the powers conferred, or
intended to be conferred, by the Constitution.*
MISSOURI COMPROMISE—Maine applied for admission
into the Union. She was populous, ready, and anxious to es-
cape her Massachusetts allegiance. But the Free States would
then preponderate in the Senate. Missouri again asked for
leave to form a State government.‘ Maine was voted in by the
House. Missouri was granted permission, but with the amend-
ment of the last session, prohibiting slavery, the vote being en-
tirely sectional. The Senate threw the responsibility back on
the House by combining the bills, as originally presented.(the
*The terms “Free Trade,” “ Tariff for Revenue” and “ Tariff for'Rievenue
only” were not then as common as now. Then the question of Tariff, ‘in ‘the af-
ﬁrmative, was a question of Constitutional construction and a national policy; in
the negative, a questiomof Constitutionalconstruction anda State policy. Now,
so generally do the liberal construction views prevail, the question is no longer one
of right or wrong construction of the Constitution, buta'one of policy ‘entirely, a
policy, however, which still divides sentiment and supports parties.
22
338 POLITICAL HISTORY.
Missouri bill with slavery), and passing them. This action the
House rejected. Clay, ever full of expedients, ‘came forward
with his compromise—the historic “Missouri Compromise of
1820.” It brought about the admission of Maine, March 15,
1820, and gave leave to Missouri to form a State government
with slavery. It also prohibited slavery in all territory of the
United States north of 36° 30', in otherwords, it extended the
already familiar Mason and Dixon line through to the Paciﬁc,*
or at least as far as the western boundary of Missouri. Con-
gress adjourned May I 5, 1820.
ELECTION OF 1820.—This election passed off without
nominations by either party. The electors chosen cast their
votes by common consent for Monroe and Tompkins, one how-
ever voting for john Q. Adams.
SIX TEEN TH C ON GRESS—Second Session—Met Nov. 1 3,
I820. Clay's resignation of the Speakership gave opportunity
for a square test of strength between the liberal and strict schools
of Republicans. A warm ﬁght for his successor resulted in the
choice of john W. Taylor, N. Y., who was equally advanced with
Clay in the matter of Protective Tariff and Internal Improvement,
and who was opposed, far more earnestly than Clay, to the
extension of slavery in the Territoriesfl' The heat of this con-
test was transferred to Missouri's claim for admission as a State,
she having now prepared a State government, with a clause in
the Constitution prohibiting free negroes from entering her
bounds. As a free negro was a citizen in some of the Northern
* Clay’s compromise barely got through the Congress. In the Senate it was car-
ried by Senators from the Southern and Slave States, against ﬁfteen Senators from
the Free States. In the House it was carried by a vote of 86 to 82, thirty-ﬁve of
the latter being from Slave States and its bitterest opponents. Randolph denounced
it as a “ dirty bargain," and called those “ Northern men with Southern principles ”-
who were ashamed of them or afraid to Stand up for them “ doughfaces,” a term
which was in convenient and Sarcastic use for forty years. The compromise bill
was then regarded by its opponents as unconstitutional. The seeds of repeal were
in its passage.
1' So offensive was this election to the extreme Southerri members, or rather so
signiﬁcant was it of the growth of liberal construction ideas in the Republican
ranks, that they chose to see in it a menace to the institution of slavery, and actually
debated a proposition to secede from the Union.
d.
l". w
)M ultlljmﬁumw
" ‘"‘l A‘. l ,
b “In ‘I
‘l
mull‘, if, ,
II
I‘ ‘ . "_‘7' if :_ J ' _ ‘ll ‘.' ‘(l
. "W, i l T ‘"1" A .' I" - ‘l I it‘ .
, ‘I . ‘ ' - I ~ , , l’ H ‘ It"
_ "",.' ' I I ' ’ ~ ~ ' Witt.“ '
‘1" ‘v I I I. I‘ i ' ‘ “ ‘. i ..I it ’
4 i ‘ ‘ I i I I ' all I - g I l I I.
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘l I ‘ i ‘ .‘II ‘D ' ‘ . i ‘l I ‘ ".Ih It vll "t" F u ~ " ‘ ,1. I.
-‘ “I. b’ .‘v " " , 7. I~ l l I ‘ I>| , I ‘-
I , < i I.‘ I I
‘ ‘I: , , ‘ , ‘ ‘I - " ' thW‘illnllIil’linlit .
'/ It)‘ II ‘In J I , , I A I 11ml‘ 1 , ‘ r ‘ ~ ‘4”’ " I‘ I i’
IIIII My. 0 I ‘- i‘ " ulglwlllllmlmﬂ ‘I J
I "I, ‘l ,“ I4; " ‘ ‘


' --u-o.I-~n_ '---u.— -w‘ “gn-Ot-o—c— » 1 _ -

HENRY CLAY ADDRESSING THE U. S. SENATE.
339


340' POLITICAL HISTORY OF
States, this was regarded, in its unqualiﬁed form, as unconstitu-
tionally and offensively restrictive. ' Debate over the matter'took
all the latitude incident to discussion of the slave question and
involved all its bitterness. Not until Clay again came forward
With measures of peace did the contention subside. His propo-
' sition admitted the, State, provided the Constitution were so
amended as to recognize all the citizven'sof other States. Her
Legislature did this in June, 1821, and ‘she became a State Aug.
10, 1821-. i '4 ' I
The electoral vote was counted in February, and the status of
Missouri came up. Denying the right .of Congress to interfere
with slavery within her borders, the Southern members claimed
that she was already a State, and so determined to _count her
electoral vote. The Northern members, claiming authority of
Congress over all Territories for any purpose, until fully qualiﬁed
to enter as'S'tates, determined that her electoral vote should not
be counted. After an angry discussion, another compromise was
effected, which counted the vote with an “if.” “If” her vote
were counted, James Monroe would have 234, out of 235, and
John Adams 1, for President, and Daniel D. Tompkins would
havei221 for Vice-President, with 13 scattering. “If,” on the
contrary, her- vote were not counted there would be a total of
only 232, and the’ Monroe and Tompkins vote would be reduced
to 231 and 218, respectively. Congress adjourned sine a’ie,
March 3d, 1821. The candidates—elect were sworn into office
March 5, '1821',"the 4th falling on Sunday.
MoNRoE's SECOND ADMINISTRATION. 1
March 5, 1821—-—Mar_ch 3, 1825.
JAMES MoNRoE, VA., President. DANIEL D. ToMPK1Ns, N. Y.,
i - Vice-President.
Congresses. - Sessions.
1, December 3, 182I—May 8, 1822.
2, December 2, 1822—March 3, 1823.
1, December 1, 1823—.May_.27, 1.824. .
2, December 6, 1824—March 3, I825.
' SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS.
EIGHTEENTII CoNcREss.
THE UNITED STATES. ‘ 341
ELECTORAL VOTE.*

Republican.
Basis of James Mon- Daniel D. Tomp:
States. 35,000. Vote roe, Va. kins, N. Y. N0 opposition
Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 3 3
Connecticut . . . . . . . . 7 9 9 9
Delaware . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 4 Se.
Georgia............. 6 8 8 8
Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 3 3
Indiana...-.......... 1 3 3 3
Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . 10 12 12 12
Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . I 3 3 3
M Ime . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 9 9
Mar) land . . . . . . . . . . 9 11 11. 10
Massachusetts . . . . . .. 13 15 15 7
Mississippi. . . . . .. 1 3 3 3
Missouri . . . . . . . . . .. 1 3 . . . . Disputed. '
New Hampshire. . . . 6 8 7 7 1 for Adams.
New Jersey . . . . . . . .. 6 8 8 8
New York.......... 27 29 .29 29
North Carolina.. 13 15 15 15
Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ~ 8 8 8
Pennsylvania . . . . . . .. 23 25 25 25
Rhode Island . . . . . . . 2 4 4 4
South Carolina . . . . . . 9 11 II 1 1
Tennessee...'........ 6 8 8 8
Vermont. .' . . . . . . . . . . 6 8 8 8
Virginia . . . . . . . . . . .. 23 25 25 25
Totals . . . . . . . ..187 235 231 218
THE CABINET.
Secretary of State . . . . . . . . . .John Quincy Adams, Mass . . . . . .Continued.
Secretary of Treasury . . . . . H. Crawford, Ga.. . - . . . . . “
Secretary of War . . . . . . . . . .John C. Calhoun, S. C . . . . . . . . . .. “
Secretary of Navy.. . . . . ..Smith Thompson, N. Y . . . . . . p “
Attorney-General . . . . . . . . ..Richard Rush, Pa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “
Postmaster-General . . . . . . . . .R. J. Meigs, Ohio... . . . . . . . . “
SE VEN TEEN TH C ONGRESS—First Session.——Met Dec.
3, 1821. The organization was effected by electing P. P. Bar-
bour, Va., Speaker. The fanciful “ era of good feeling” held, so
far as opposition to the Republicans went, but they were now a
divided and inharmonious party. The ﬁght over the speaker-
ship showed that the strict or old school elements were willing
to die in their trenches rather than suffer themselves to be car-
ried further by the liberal or new school element. The‘ former
won the Speaker, but the latter‘ passed a bill'to care for the
National (Cumberland) Road. At this juncture Monroe brok'e
* Of the scattering 8 were cast for Richard Stockton ; 4 for Daniel Rodney; 1
for Robert G. Harper; 1 for Richard Rush. There were three vacancies.
342 ' POLITICAL HISTORY OF
with the liberals, took a decided step backwards and vetoed the
bill. His veto message discussed the constitutional side of the
question very elaborately, and concluded with the announcement
that no power was conferred on Congress to pass laws for in-
ternal improvements of this kind. The President reached the
above conclusion only after long hesitation, for his messages
heretofore rather favored the position of the liberals, a strong
element in his Cabinet still favored it, and he even advised, in
his veto, an amendment to the Constitution conferring directly
the powers on Congress which the liberal interpreters claimed
it was endowed with by implication. However, his position,
now that it was deﬁnitely ascertained, fortiﬁed that of the strict
school, and they summarily disposed of bills involving the same
principle looking to an internal canal system and a Tariff with
stronger protective features. -
Nor was the country in a happy mood. Great ﬁnancial ‘dis-
tress prevailed. The government was forced to retrench, and
even to borrow. ' The division in the Republican ranks was
gradually forcing its way down among the masses, and as is
common in such cases, its party feeling was keener than between
old opponents. The Congress adjourned, May 8, 1822.
SE VEN T BEN T H CONGRESS -— Second Session. -— Met
Dec. 2, 1822. Again the liberals forced their Internal Improve-
ment and Protective Tariff ideas to the front to meet with defeat
at the hands of the rigid interpreters. All however united to
help the administration along in its now difﬁcult work of keep-
ing ﬁnancially aﬂoat. An adj ournm'ent sine die took place, March
3,1823. -
EZGHTEENTH CONGRESS—First Session—Met Dec. I,
1823, and organized by electing Henry Clay Speaker. This ’
election was signiﬁcant. It showed that the country had swung
to the liberal side of the Republican party. It meant that there-
after that side would push its ‘measures with greater vigor and
under better auspices. .
MONROE DOCTRINE—It will be remembered that Clay
in the Fifteenth Congress had proposed as a Foreign Policy the
recognition of the South American Republics, then in a state of .
THE UNITED STATES. 343
revolt from Spain. The President in his message to the present
Congress dwelt largely on this question of recognition, and
formulated what has ever since been accepted as “the Monroe
Doctrine.” It announced the principle of (I) “ No interference in
wars of European powers in matters relating to themselves.” (2)
Defense of our own political system against any attempt of foreign
powers to establish theirs in any part of this hemisphere. (3)
No interference with existing foreign colonies. (4) Interference
by foreign powers with colonial dependencies that have declared
and maintained their independence, and been recognized by this
government, to be regarded as an unfriendly disposition toward
the United States. (5) “ It is the true policy of the government
to leave the parties (Spain and the revolting Republics) to them-
selves, in the hope that other powers will do the same,” this,
since “Spain cannot subdue them,” and since, if left alone, they
would never voluntarily adopt a foreign political system.
TARIFF OF 1824.——In the same message Monroe inclined
to the popularside on matters of Protection and Internal Im-
' provement. He was a good President in that he was observant
of situations and respected majority wishes. Two months were
consumed in heated debate on this measure, which, while the
rates on leading articles were not as high. as under the act of
1812, involved’ more directly the principle of protection to
American manufactures, by preventing the competition of the
cheaper manufactures of Europe, than any preceding act. Lines
were drawn closely between the liberal and strict schools of
interpreters of the Constitution, and, strange to say, these lines
now showed quite a solid array of Southern States * against as
solid an array of Northern States. The former supplemented
their old argument against the Constitutionality of the Protective
idea, by the new ones that it was unjust to them, and, moreover,
sectional in spirit. Thus early they projected into the conten-
tion the thought that legislative protection to manufacturing in-
dustry was legislative hardship to planting industry, and that en-'
couragement of free paid labor was discouragement of slave
unpaid labor. The bill passed by a close vote, a few of its
* Clay’s own State, Kentucky, was for the bill.
344 POLITICAL HISTORY. -
ablest opponents, as Webster, coming from the New England
States. These, however, chieﬂy contested the propriety of
high protective duties and not the Constitutional right to impose
them, denying that the distress of the country was as great as
described by the friends of the bill, and doubting if any legisla-
tion could be made to stimulate industry and manufacturing
enterprise. The bill was approved by the President and
thoroughly engrafted “The American System” in our national
politics. The duties on‘ ‘leading articles were: Sugar, 3 cents
per pound; coffee, 5 cents per pound; tea, 25 cents per pound;
salt (bulk), 20 cents per pound; pig iron, 20 per cent.; bar iron,
,8 30 per ton; manufactures of glass, 30 per cent. and 3 cents per
pound; manufactures of cotton, 25 per cent.; manufactures of
woollens, 30 per ‘cent. ; silk, 25 per cent. It was followed by
another bill involving the same liberal views, which provided for
surveys of routes upon which to base a system of national
canals. ‘ Congress adjourned, May 27, 1824.
ELECTION OF 1824.——In the last Presidential election the
Republican party had no opposition, but it had a head. ‘Now
it furnished its own opposition, being without a head. The
contest began during the session of the previous Congress by
bids for popular favor, expediency measures and votes, and out-
lines for a future which would be less gloomy than the then
present. I ‘
An attempt to revive the . obsolete Congressional caucus
nominations, in the interest of Wm. H. Crawford, Ga., failed.
A Constitutional amendment had been mooted to choose electors
by popular vote. The campaign became historic as “the scrub
race for the Presidency.” The liberal school of Republicans sup-
ported Henry Clay, Ky, and John Quincy Adams. ,The strict
school supported Wm. H. Crawford, Ga., and Andrew Jackson,
Tenn. John C. Calhoun, S. C., had a general support for the
Vice-Presidency and~ was elected. None of the candidates for
the Presidency received a majority of“ the whole number ” of
electoral votes, though Jackson had the most. The election
therefore went into the House or Representatives.
EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS—Second Session.-—,Met Dec.

C-NHOI
'NQOHTVD
'Avqo AHNHH

/

346 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
6, 1324. This session saw the disruption of the Republican
party, and the dawn of the Whig party. Its only political work
was the counting of the electoral vote and the subsequent
election of a President. The count showed 99 for Jackson; 84
for John Quincy Adams ; 41 for Wm. H. Crawford; 37 for Henry
Clay. For Vice-President, Calhoun had 182 votes, as against 78
' scattering. He was, therefore, declared Vice-President. In the
contest over the Presidency in ‘the House, Clay, who was out of
the ﬁght,* threw his strength, or as much of it as he could con-
trol, to Adams, which gave him I 3 States, as against 7 for Jack-
son and 4 for Crawford. Though the election of Adams was
perfectly regular and constitutional, it forced the liberal and
strict schools of interpreters wide apart, and the latter, carrying
their ﬁght to the country in the shape of a rebuke to those Rep- '
resentatives who had slaughtered Jackson, soon had the vantage
ground. Congress adjourned sz'ne die, March 3, 1825. The
President and Vice-President elect were sworn into ofﬁce, March
4, 1825.
X.
JOHN Q. ADAMS’- ADMINISTRATION.
March 4, 1825--March 3, 1829.
JOHN‘ QUINCY ADAMS, MASS., President. JoHN C. CALHOUN,
S. C., Vice-President.
Congresses. Sessions.
I, December 5, I825-May 22, 1826.
NINETEENTH CONGRESS‘ {2, December 4, 1826-March 3, 1327-
I, December 3, 1827—May 26, 1828.
TWENTIETH CONGRESS‘ {2, December I, I828-March 3, I829.
* In such contests the three candidates having the highest number of votes are
the only candidates before the House, and in voting each State shall have only one
vote. Twelfth Amendment to Constitution.
THE UNITED STATES. 347
ELECTORAL VOTE.*

Republicans.
T President. Vice-President:
A. Jack- J. Q. Ad- W. H. J. C. N. San-
Basis of son, ams, Crawford, H. Clay, Calhoun, ford,
States. 40,000. Votes. Tenn. Mass. Ga. Ky. S. C. N. Y.
Alabama . . . . . . ..3 5' 5 .. .. 5 --
Connecticut . . . . . . 6 8 . . 8 . . . . . . 86-
Delaware..... 1 3 .. I 2 .. 1 50-
Georgia . . . . . . 7 9 .. .. 9 .. .. ‘SC-
IIIIHOIS . a e - u e . e 0 o I 3 I o o o o 3 s '
Indiana . s e . o . Q a u 0 3 5 s o o o o o o 5 5c.
Kentucky“. . a . a ‘.12 I4. 0 o 0 o 0 c 7 7
LOulSiana........-. 3 5 3 2 00 no 5 '-
Maine . - - . . . - . Q 00 7 9 0 0 9 o o 0 o 9 s a
Maryland . q 0 O o o u 9 7 3 U 0 o Sc.
Massachusetts....13 15 .. Is 00 .. 15 ..
Mississippi . . . . . . . I 3 3 . . . . . . 3 - -
Missouri’ . . . . . . . . . I 3 . . . . . . 3 . . SC.
New Hampshire. . 6 8 0 a 8 0 0 o o 7 Sc‘
New Jersey . . . . .. 6 8 8 .. 00 .. 8 ~-
New York . . . . . . . 34 36 1 26 5 4 29 7
North Carolina....13 15 15 .. 00 .. 15 .-
Ohio.............14 16 ..~ .. .. 16 .. 16
Pennsylvania . . . . . 26 28 28 . . . . . . 28 - .
RhOde Island. . . . 2 4- 0 c 4 o o o o 3 '
South Carolina... .. 9 11 II .. on .. I! - -
Tennessee, . . . . . .. 9 11 11 .. .. .. ll ..
Vermont. . . . . . . .. 5 7 .. 1 .. 00 7 ..
Virginia..........22 24 .. .. 24 _._._ _._._ Totals. . . . ..213 261 99 84. 41 37 182 30
THE CABINET.
Secretary of State . . . . . .Henry Clay, Ky.
Secretary of Treasury. ..Richard Rush, Pa.
Secretary of War . . . . . . .James Barbour, Va.
Secretary of Navy.. . . ...S. L. Southard, N. . . . . .Continued.
Attorney-General . . . . . . .William Wirt, Va.. . . . . - . .. “
Postmaster-GeneraL. . . . .John McLean, Ohio . . . . . . . “
NA TIONAL REPUBLICAN PAR Tl/T—This party, fore-
shadowed for some time, was now ready for a name. The divi-
sion in the Republican ranks, encouraged by the free play of
* There was one vacancy. The scattering votes were, N. Macon, 24; A. Jackson,
13 ; Martin Van Buren, 9; Henry Clay, 2. At this election the popular vote began to
be considered, for a great many States had abandoned the plan of choosing electors
by their Legislatures, and a majority of them were about to do so. South Carolina
adhered to the plan till 1868. The popular vote at this election was Andrew
Jackson, 155,872, 10 States; John Q. Adams, 105,321, 8 States; Wm. H. Craw-
ford, 44,282, 3 States; Henry Clay, 46,587, 3‘ States. Contest ﬁnally decided in
the House. See p. 497. ‘
348 ‘ POLITICAL HISTORY OF
sentiment during “The era of good feeling,” and facilitated by
the efforts of leaders of both schools of construction to impart
their personalism to a following, now became a permanent
breach. Adams entered on his administration with the Crawford
supporters, who were the straightest sect of rigid interpreters,
against him. His success had also set the Jackson following
against 1 him. They differed from the Crawford supporters only
in the respect that they went with Jackson in his Federal and
Protective Tariff ideas. But they could now unite forces and
_stand squarely against the administration. Clay’s strength,
which had gone to Adams’ support in the House and helped to~
elect him President, naturally favored the administration. _ But
Adams had made Clay his Secretary of State, a position then
much courted as inviting to the Presidency. This gave the now
united and embittered opposition a chance to charge collusion
between Adams and Clay. Crimination and recrimination fol-
lowed. Both sides became more compact and determined.
Besides the sharp personalities involved, the President, in his
inaugural and in his ﬁrst message to Congress, had mapped a
set of principles which, as to Protection, Internal Improvement,
and liberality of Constitutional Construction in general, would
answer as a bond of agreement for his own followers and those
of Clay. Thus solidiﬁed, they set out as National Republicans
(though known in the campaign of 1828 as Adams’ men), a
name excellently chosen, for as Republicans, yet as liberal or
national interpreters of the Constitution, the title was accurate
and full of meaning. But by a fatality not unusual with party
titles, the name did not stick for many years, being pushed aside
to make room for the meaningless title of Whig.
DEMOCRATIC PART Y.--The Crawford and Jackson fol-
lowing were united only in their opposition to Adams’ adminis-
tration and to the new National Republican party. Crawford
was sick and could not look out for his own Presidential chances.
Jackson forced the situation, got a nomination three years in
advance (October, 1825) from the Legislature of Tennessee, and
thus became a centre about which all opposition to the adminis-
tration could cluster. While Jackson's personalism was neces<
THE UNITED STATES. 349
sary to attract the Crawford support and cement the alliance,
his followers were (in the campaign of 1828’) “jackson men."
Thus, claiming to adhere more closely to the old Republican
traditions than either Adams or Clay, they were more unmindful
of the old Republican name, having dropped it altogether. But
when it became necessary to get away from jackson’s personalism
and give the party a national status, the name Democrat* was
popularly and ofﬁcially assumed. It was an easy transition to
this title. Men like Calhoun and others, who never liked the
name Republican, had all along preferred to be designated as
Democrats. It was, therefore, not new; had been, in‘ fact, a part
of the Republican title, and was a titular revival, rather than in-
vention. Thus went out of existence the distinctive Republican
party and Republican name, though the Democrats claimed to
perpetuate its principles, in a rigid construction of the Constitu- '
tion. Yet even in this they too were, for a time at least, divided,
for the extreme Southern, or State rights wing, sometimes called
the Crawford faction, held to the doctrine of the Kentucky reso-
lutions of I 799, which, we have seen, squarely broached the right
to nullify objectionable Federal laws. A test of their doctrine
was soon to be made under the lead of Calhoun.
NINETEENTH CONGRESS—First Session—Met Dec. 5,
I82 5, with a bare majority of liberal Republicans, who organized
by electing john W. Taylor, N. Y., Speaker. The Senate had a
majority of administration members, but Calhoun so arranged
the committees as to enable the opposition to obstruct, or defeat
nearly every political measure known to be favored by the Pres-
ident. This led the majority on theﬂoor to retaliate by taking
the power of appointing committees away from the presiding
ofﬁcer, temporarily. The opposition was so strong and deﬁant
* The present Democratic party began to take its name in 1831, and became fully
recognized in 1832-33. I have before me papers of both the National Republican
and Jackson parties in183 1. One called the “ Republican” had‘ the ticket headed
“Democrat-Republican candidate for President in 1832, Andrew jackson.” On
the other side in 1831, the papers were headed, “ National Republican candidate
for President in 1832, Henry Clay.” I was myself the secretary of a National
Republican club in 1832, and have the minutes now before mew—Reminiscence:
of an old Whig. '
350 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
that no measures of moment passed the Congress, except those
relating to appropriations. But a great many important bills
were debated, among which was one to amend the Constitution,
so as to permit the people to vote directly for the President; a
“ Tenure of Ofﬁce Bill,” compelling the President to lay before
the Senate his reasons for making removals from ofﬁce; another
to so amend the Constitution as to prevent any member of the
Congress from accepting a Federal ofﬁce during his term; and
lastly a bill which‘ proposed a Congress of American States to
agree on a plan to prevent future European colonies and armed
influence in the country. This last became notable, as drawing
from the President, who had been a member of Monroe’s cabinet,
a reiteration of “ The Monroe Doctrine,’_’ and a limitation of it,
as Monroe’s own idea, to our own border. His idea also being,
that interference with nations on our own continent or hemis-
phere, even to protect them, would be unjustiﬁable, except under
the provisions designed to be agreed upon by some such tribunal
as the proposed Congress of American States. Congress ad-
journed May 22, 1826. .
NINETEENTH CONGRESS—Second Session—Met Dec.
4, I826. The two parties—National Republican and Demo—
cratic—still squarely faced each other, both nearly equally
strong, both voting down the measures of the other, among
which was one to increase the Tariff, and another which de-
serves attention as the ﬁrst effort to divide a part of the national
revenue among the States.* Congress adjourned sz'ne dz'e, March
3,1827. “
T WEN T [ET H CONGRESS—First Session—Met Dec. 3,
1827. Organized by electing Andrew Stevenson, Va., a Demo-
crat, Speaker. This was a curiously constituted Congress. It
was Democratic. What may be called the Adams and Jackson
issues—they were scarcely Administration and Anti-Administra-
tion, nor yet National Republican (or Whig) and Democratic—5
* This was afterwards done during Jackson’s administration. The same question
of a division of the surplus revenue among the States is now attracting wide atten-
tion. The policy of doing it was announced- in the Pennsylvania Republican
platform of 1882. - -
THE UNITED STATES. 351
had been carried to the country. The Democrats carried every
Southern State except Louisiana. They were no less fortunate,
owing to Jackson's Protective Tariff record, in New York, Penn-
sylvania * and Illinois. Thus while they secured a majority in
the Congress, it was united only for general party purposes. On
the matter of a Protective Tariff it was divided, and enough
Democrats from Northern States supported the National Re-
publicans to bring about the celebrated Tariff Act of May 19,
1828.
TARIFF OF 1828.—-This act had nothing peculiar about it,
except that it. increased the duty on manufactures of wool, and
some other manufactures, to what was deemed a protective ex-
tent. But its importance was due to the fact that it was de-
signed to emphasize the “American system,” and inﬂuence the
approaching Presidential election. (2) To the fact that it was a
turning-point. of the hitherto hostile New England sentiment,
Webster having changed ground and entered upon its advocacy.
(3) To the fact that opposition to it was more than ever sec-
tional, the South regarding it as robbery of the many for the
beneﬁt of the few, as a blow at the planting interests, as a dis-
crimination against unpaid labor, and as unconstitutional. (4)
To the fact that it became the basis of that partisan hostility
which rapidly culminated in nulliﬁcation.
The session was proliﬁc of party debates, but barren of results,
other than those indirect ones which were designed to work to
the beneﬁt or detriment of prospective candidates for the Presi-
den_cy.- Congress adjourned, May 26, 1828.
ELECTION OF 1828.—-The common. consent candidates of
the respective parties were Adams and Jackson. No others were
possible, for really these had had the ﬁeld for four years. The
great point with Adams, or the National Republicans, was to so
emphasize the Protective Tariff and Internal Improvement ideas
of the administration as to take away from Jackson whatever
strength his Tariff record gave him. With Jackson the contest
* A Convention of Protectionists, of national import, had been held at Harrisburg,
Pa., in July, 1827, which took the ground that the country needed greater protection
than the act of 1824 gave.
352 POLITICAL HISTORY.
was altogether different. He considered himself aggrieved by
the result of the previous election, and his campaign was con-
ducted—in the Democratic name—so as to vindicate the‘ prin-
ciple of choice by the popular vote‘, in other words the Demo-
cratic principle. A misfortune of the situation was that the
.entire candidacy was sectional, for John C. Calhoun, S. C.,iwas
running as Vice-President with Andrew Jackson, Tenn., and
Richard Rush, Pa., as Vice-President with John Quincy Adams,
Mass. The result would reach further than simple party differ-
.ences warranted. At ‘the election in November the Democrats
triumphed.
T WEN T IET H CONGRESS—Second Session—Met Dec.
1, 1828, with its‘ former Democratic majority in both Houses,
the doubtful members in the Senate having swung to the Anti—
Administration side, or, which is the Same, to the ~Side of the in—
coming administration. No measures were mooted likely to
hamper the new administration, though one, accepting the lib!
eral theory of Internal Improvement, and making large appro-
priation therefor, went through, after provoking the then Stereo-
typed debates as to its constitutionality. The electoral count_in
February showed 178 votes for Jackson and 83 for Adams, for
President, and 171 for Calhoun, and 83 for Rush, for Vice-Presi-
dent. Congress adjourned sine die, March 3, 1829. The candi-
dates elect were sworn into ofﬁce March 4, 1829.
XI. »
~IACKSON’S FIRST ADMINISTRATION.
March 4, 1829—March 3, 1833.
ANDREW JACKSON, TENN., President. JOHN C. CALHOUN, S. C.,
' ' ' Vice-President.
Congresses. . Sessions.
1, December 7, 1829—May 31, 1830.
2, December 6, 1830—March 3, 1831.
1, December 5, 1831—July 16, 1832.
2, December 3, 1832-March 3, 1833.
TWENTY-FIRST CONGRESS.
TWENTY-SECOND CONGRESS.

...,/1,
/
/ .1
Z/
/ 4.. / 7/
. a?
./
1..
ANDREW JACKSON.
Q3
354 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
ELECTORAL ‘VOTER?

Democrat. National Republican.
Basis of And. Jack- . C. Cal- IJTQ. Adams, R. RusIT,
States. 40,000. Votes. son, Tenn. oun, S. C. Mass. Pa.
Alabama . . . . . . . . 3 5 5 5 . . . .
Connecticut . . . . . . 6 8 . . . . 8 8
Delaware......... 1 3 .. .. 3 3
Georgia . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 9 2 . . . . 7 for S. C. Smith.
Illinois . . . . . . . . . . I 3 3 3 . . . .
Indiana . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 5 5 . . . .
Kentucky.. . . . . . .. 12 14 14 14 . . . .
Louisiana . . . . . . . . 3 5 5 5 . . . .
Maine . . . . . . . . . .. 7 9 ' 1 1 - 8 8
Maryland . . . . . . . . 9 II _ 5 5 6 6
Massachusetts . . . . 13‘ 15 . . . . Is 15
Mississippi.. . . . . .. 1 3 3 3 . . . .
Missouri.......... I 3 3 3 .. ..
New Hampshire. . 6 8 . . . . 8 8
New Jersey...... 6 8 .. .. 8 8
New York . . . . . . . 34 36 20 20 16 16
North Carolina. . . . 13 15 V 15 15 . . . .
Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . I4 16 16 16 . . . .
Pennsylvania. . . . . 26 28 28 28 . . ..
Rhode Island. . . . 2 4 . . . . 4 4
South Carolina.. .. 9 11 11 II . . . .
Tennessee........ 9 11 II 11 .. ..
Vermont . . . . . . . . 5 7 - - i - 7 7
Virginia......... 22 24 24 24- .. ..
Totals. . . . . . .213 261 178 171 83 83
CABINET
Secretary of State . . . . . . . . . . . .Martin Van Buren, N. Y.
Secretary of Treasury . . . . . . . . .Samuel D. Ingham, Pa.
Secretary of War . . . . . . . . . . . .John H. Eaton, Tenn.
Secretary of_ Navy . . . . . . . . . . . .John Branch, N. C.
Attorney-General . . . . . . . . . . . . .John M. Berrien, Ga. -
Postmaster-General . . . . . . . . . . .Wm. T. Barry, Ky.
NEW ADMINIS T RA T [ ON—This ﬁrst Democratic admin-
istration opened amid storm and invited storm. It had to
confront the fact that theextreme Democrats of the South (the
Crawford following) were not heartily with it, but that their
drift was toward Vice-President Calhoun, as their leader, who
was now among the most rigid masters in the school of strict
interpreters and a pronounced champion of the Kentucky reso-
lutions of 1799. Indeed, both Georgia and South Carolina had
already assumed, through their Legislatures, to notify the Presi-
dent and the country that they declared null and void any act
* Popular vote—Jackson, 647,231 ; States,‘ I 5; Adams, 509,097; States, 9.
THE UNITED STATES. 355
of Congress (the really objectionable act was the tariff of 1828)
which they as States adjudged unconstitutional.
In his ﬁrst message, Jackson took high ground against a re-
charter of the National Bank, though the charter of 1816 did
not expire till 1836, regarded its usefulness as in every way
past, argued that it was Anti-Democratic arfd despotic, and held
the law authorizing it unconstitutional. He also swung quite to
the side of those who opposed Protection and Internal Improve-
ment. This alienated from- him very many Democrats who were
of sufﬁciently liberal turn to favor all these measures. How-
ever, this did not last very long, for circumstances soon com-
pelled him to change front on Tariff and Internal Improvement
measures, and to at least see that all such as had assumed the
shape of law were duly enforced. His hostility to the bank,
however, continued. He gave his opposition a decidedly politi-
cal turn. Its destruction was the result.
Nor was the foreign outlook assuring. France was urging a
settlement of her spoliation claims, even to the extent of threat-
.ening war, and England was clamorous and angry about the
Maine boundary. To cap all, a new party, known as the Anti-
Masonic, had risen in New York, which became a bidder for
national distinction, and which, in its fervor, threatened to deé
moralize existing political forces.* Amid all these complica-
tions and antagonisms a President of ordinary nerve would have
failed. But it seemed to be the kind of political atmosphere
which Jackson liked to breathe. He was fortunate in the
respect that there could be no hearty and effective combination
of opposing elements, and equallyfortunate in the sympathy
which naturally goes out toward one who is singly enlisted
against overwhelming odds. His personalism infected his entire
administration, and this, in his case, was not a misfortune, for
* This organization, short-lived as it was, was peculiarly galling to such leaders
as Clay and Jackson, who were both Masons. The furore which originated it came
from the sudden, and as yet unaccounted for, disappearance of one Daniel Morgan,
of Batavia, N. Y., who had written a book exposing the secrets of Free Masonry,‘
in 1826. In 1832 it nominated a Presidential ticket, and then fell into'rapid
decline. a
356 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
he had been a military hero, was of undeniably honest, but blunt
intention, and was quite on a level with the masses in brusque
demeanor and every-day speech. '
VICTOR AND SPOILS.—-The clouded and uncertain sur-
roundings of the new administration were its justiﬁcation for a
general clearing out of all ofﬁcials not in sympathy with it.
This became the new doctrine of “Rotation in Ofﬁce,” or as it
found popular expression from the lips of Senator Marcy, N. Y.,
the doctrine that “The spoils of the enemy belonged to the
victor.” * We have seen that Jefferson had given the hint for
this doctrine, but that after applying it for the correction of
certain errors on the part of his predecessor, had fallen back on
the custom, which prevailed from the beginning till Jackson’s
time, of trusting to time to make vacancies and to the future
supremacy of his party to ﬁll them. Whether Jackson’s excuse
of self-defense'werejustiﬁed or not, his practice was accepted
by all future parties, and prevailed without question, till called to
account by Civil Service Reform.
T WEN T Y-FIRS T C ON GRESS—First Session—Met Dec.-
7, 1829, and organized by re-electing Andrew Stevenson,
Va., Speaker, the Democrats being in a majority in both
branches. Now the alienations already indicated began.
The message, taking its high ground against the National
Bank, which was allied with Protection and Internal Improve-
ment, and proposing various things, among them a distribu-
tion of the surplus revenue to the States,‘l' which were either
new or upon which an agreement was impossible, they were
* “ Another doctrine of Jackson was that he was ‘ responsible for the entire action
of the Executive Department,’ and, therefore, had the power to remove and appoint
all oﬁicers at pleasure—a doctrine which, at a later day, during the administration
of Andrew Johnson, Congress was compelled to legislate against. ‘ Responsible?’
said Mr. Webster, replying to Jackson’s protest. ‘ What does he mean by being
responsible ? ’ Does he mean legal responsibility P Certainly not—no Such thing.
Legal responsibility signiﬁes liability to punishment for misconduct or maladminis-
tration. A Briareus sits in the centre of our system, and with his hundred hands
touches eterything, moves everything, controls everything. I ask, sir, is this Re-
publicanism ? is this a government of laws ? is this legal responsibility ? ”--Remin'
z'seenees of an old Whig.
{- This afterwards came about. See p. 369; also p. 350 and note.
' THE UNITED STATES. ' 357
summarily dealt with by the committees to which they were
respectively referred. Party lines were strictly drawn over the
question of removing the Cherokee Indians of Georgia to the
west of the Mississippi, the Legislature of that State having
enacted to open their lands to settlers, contrary to existing
treaties with the tribe. The National Republicans opposed the
bill for removal. Though it passed, it was ineffective, the
Indians refusing to part with their lands.* Several enactments
looking to Internal Improvements were passed, some of which ,
the President vetoed directly. Others he retained for the legal
ten days, and Congress having in the meantime adjourned they
thus failed to become law‘. This convenient way of vetoing
a bill by indirection was frequently practised by the President,
and got to be known as the “Pocket Veto” method.
The most notable event of the session was the introduction
into the Senate, by Foot, Conn., of an apparently harmless
resolution of inquiry into the matter of public lands, coupled
with a proposition to stop surveys and limit sales. As the ef-
fect of the proposition would have been to check migration and
western settlement, it was opposed by western members, and
gave rise to a ﬁve-month debate. This took the widest latitude.
The imputation by Southern members that it had always been a
New England policy to check western settlement, drew from
Webster a reference to the ordinance of I 787 for the govern-
ment of the territory northwest of the Ohio. As this ordinance
prohibited slavery, the slave question came up, and was discussed
in all its bearings, the debates being sectional, exhaustive and
bitter. Hayne’s allusion to the attitude of New England in the
war of 1812 brought from Webster a reference to the Kentucky
nullifying resolutions of I799,'l' and to the recent action of
* They were afterwards forcibly removed in deﬁance of a decision of the Supreme
Court to the effect that the treaties between them and the United States were
valid. '
1- Hayne quoted the Virginia resolutions of 1799, written by Madison, as justify
ing nulliﬁcation. Webster defended Madison, and showed that such interpretation
could not be put upon them. But this did not destroy Hayne’s reliance on the
Kentucky resolutions, written by Jefferson. We have taken the trouble to show
that the doctrine of nulliﬁcation was not in the Kentucky resolutions which jeffer-
358 POLITICAL HISTORY.
Georgia and South Carolina respecting the tariff of 1828. This
brought up the whole question of nulliﬁcation, Hayn'e voicing
the well-known sentiments of Calhoun. And so it drifted from
Southern grievance to New‘England Federalism, from State
rights to Federal powers, from the government as a League to
the government as a Nation, covering the entire ﬁeld of
national and constitutional history. Benton, though a par-
ticipant, justly calls it “The Great Debate in the Senate.” Con-
gress adjourned, May 31, 1830.
T WEN T Y-FTRS T C ON CHESS—Second Session—Met Dec.
6, 1830. This Congress met at a time when the doctrine of
Nulliﬁcation was passing from peaceful resistance to Federal
authority to open, violent resistance. It had shown its hand the
preceding April, when at a dinner party in Washington the
President had rebuked the Nulliﬁcation sentiment which pre~
vailed by the toast, “Our Federal Union; it must and shall be
preserved.” Vice-President Calhoun immediately ﬂung- the
counter-toast among the guests, “Liberty, dearer than Union.”
These led to enough to satisfy the President that he must be on
his guard, and the Nulliﬁers that they could not carry himwith
them. i As to his friends in Congress, especially those of liberal
sentiment, he offended them, as before, by repeating in his mes-
sage his opposition to the National Bank, and by going still
further and opposing Internal Improvement, except under cer-
tain limited conditions. This ‘element went to the support of
the National Republicans, and the result was such an emphatic
verdict in favor of bills for improvement of harbors, rivers and
roads, and for light-houses, that he relented his opposition and
gave them executive approval. - .
Before adjournment the President was made to feel the hatred
of the Nulliﬁers toward him. Vice-President Calhoun came out
in a pamphlet severely criticising his war record, especially as
it related to the Seminole affair. This touched him in a very
tender spot. Angered beyond measure at its publication, smart~
son drew, but was in those of the next year (1799), in the shape of an amend—
ment to Jefferson’s. Madison protested against Hayne’s use of Jefferson’s name in
support of what he called the “ colossal heresy of nulliﬁcation.”


a I
A /_ In
./ﬂ
llrlllvf
II I
v,
/
DANIEL WEBSTER.

ROBERT Y. HAYNE.
359
360 - POLITICAL HISTORY OF
ing under the insinuation that all was not lovely among the
families of his cabinet, and the further insinuation that he pre-
ferred to be advised by hangers-on at the White House—-a
‘‘ Kitchen Cabinet,” as they were called—he stormed as only
“ Old Hickory” could storm. His cabinet resigned in a body,
and gave him opportunity to reorganize, which he did by mak-
ing Edward Livingston, La., his Secretary of State, vice Van
Buren; Louis McLane, Del, Secretary of Treasury, vz'ce Ing-
ham; Lewis Cass, Mich., Secretary of War, vz'ce Eaton; Levi
Woodbury, N. H., Secretary of Navy, vice Branch; Roger B.
Taney, Md.,Attorney-General,vice Berrien. Congress adjourned
sine die, March 3, 1831.
T WENT Y-SE CUND CONGRESS—First Session.—Met Dec.
5, 1831. The House organized by re-electing Andrew Steven-
son Speaker. His ‘majority in the former House was 93, in this
it was I. The Senate was opposed to the Administration. The
President forced his war on the United States Bank, and the
Congress met him more than half way by an act reviving the
charter, though the old one did not expire till 1836. He vetoed
the bill, and the requisite two-thirds could not be mustered to
pass it over the veto. From this time on he pursued the bank
with Spartan persistency until he drove it out of existence.
TARIFF OF 1832.——‘The processof getting ready for the
Presidential campaign seemed to require, as it had done for sev-
eral previous campaigns, a revision of the Tariff. An act passed
in_May, 1830, had considerably scaled the rates of duty laid in
the act of 1828, but not enough to destroy the Protective
features of that act. The nullifying sentiment in the South must
be appeased somehow. Another act was the remedy. It was
the act of july 14, 1832, which reduced duties very considerably
and placed coffee and tea on the freeplist. But it failed to effect
its purpdse, for as yet there had been no ofﬁcial or legal repu-
diation of the Protective idea. ‘Bills making liberal appropria-
tions for Internal Improvement were also passed and signed;
some, however, received the adroit pocket veto.
The split between the President and Vice-President was wid-
ened by the refusal of the latter to conﬁrm by his casting vote
THE ‘UNITED STATES.‘ 361
in the Senate the appointment of Van Buren as Minister to Eng-
land. This spiteful proceeding reacted on Calhoun in the shape
of the nomination of Van Buren for the Vice-Presidency. Con-
gress adjourned, july 16, 1832.
ELECTION OF 1832.—This contest is noteworthy as the
ﬁrst in which all the parties made their nominations through
national conventions, and two of them a proclamation of prin-
ciples through what are now known as party platforms. The
Anti-Masons took the ﬁeld. as early as September, 1831, at Bal-
timore, by nominating for President William Wirt, Va; for
Vice—President, Amos Ellmaker, Pa. Their principles were in-
volved in their formal call of a convention as “opposition to
secret societies.”
The National Republicans followed in December, 1831, at
Baltimore. They nominated for President, Henry Clay, Ky.; for
Vice-President, john Sergeant, Pa. The address of the conven—
tion to the people, or platform, deﬁned the issues of the cam-
paign as the tariff, internal improvement, the question of remov-
ing the Cherokee Indians, and renewal of the United States
Bank charter.
The Democrats met, also at Baltimore, in March, 1832, and
nominated for President, Andrew Jackson, Tenn.; for Vice-
President, Martin Van Buren, N. Y. The convention published
no platform of principles.*
Thus the respective parties entered the campaign. No part
of .the country felt as warmly toward jackson as at his ﬁrst
election. The South was cold, and, in the case of South Caro-
lina, deﬁant. The North, or wherever the inﬂuence of the
United States Bank was strongest, was unsympathetic or pro-
nouncedly against him. But there was little coherency in the
* But at a ratiﬁcation meeting, held in Washington, May II, 1832, a set of reso-
lutions were adopted which favored internal improvement, denounbed removals ,
from office for opinion sake and contained the ‘ following on the tariff: “Resolved, ‘
That an adequate protection to American industry is indispensable to the prosperity
of the country, and that an abandonment of the policy at this period would be
attended with consequences ruinous to the best interests of the nation.” None of
which was very good Jackson doctrine so far as his ﬁrst administration was con-
cemed. '
362 ' POLITICAL HISTORY.
opposition, and the result of the election, in November, was de-
cidedly in- his favor. “The American System,” which Clay's
nomination had placed on trial before the country, and which the
National Republicans had presented with all their eloquence and
‘logic, was, for the time being,- swamped by both the national
verdict and that in ‘the Congressional districts. South Carolina
supported none of the nominees, but ' cast‘ her vote for John
Floyd, Va., and Henry Lee, Mass. ‘ ‘
N ULLIF! C‘A T [ ON—No sooner had the Presidential election
passed over than a South Carolina convention, at Columbus,
Nov. 19, 1832, declared the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 “null
and void and not binding upon the State, her ofﬁcers and
citizens.” It is difﬁcult to understand this action at this time
except upon the theory that it was a direct blow of Calhoun and
his friends at Jackson, for since protection * had been made the
distinguishing feature of the Presidential campaign, and had not
been endorsed by the country, any reasonable opponents of the
protective idea must have been satisﬁedi‘ Other circumstances
may, however, have conspired to bring about the ordinance at
this juncture. The sentiment of nulliﬁcation had been ripening
for some time. The State of Georgia had practically nulliﬁed
the Cherokee Indian act by refusing to obey the decrees of the
United States Supreme Court. The thought that coercion of a
State by the Federal troops was possible did not prevail then,
* The nulliﬁers, it must be remembered, claimed that a tariff act which involved
the idea of protection was unconstitutional. This, they said, was the grin/amen of
the acts of 1828 and 1832. It is very probable, however, that they deemed the
time a ﬁt one to test the position of a State in the Union.
1- “ Jackson had pledged himself to a single term, and Calhoun had expected to
be his successor. But by adroit use of resolutions in several of the State Legisla-
tures in favor of a second term for Jackson, he concluded to run again. His
quarrel with Calhoun now became a feud. Calhoun pressed his nulliﬁcation idea, and
Jackson resisted by the proclamation of force, Dec. 16, 1832. Clay, fearing war,
introduced his ‘-‘ Compromise tariff bill,” which passed March 2, 183 3, under which
duties were to be scaled at the rate of 10 per cent. annually till they reached a uni-
form rate of 20 per cent. This they did in 1842. During this period the country
reached universal bankruptcy in 1837, a sub-treasury law had to be passed to supply
the place of the suspended State banks, a bankrupt law to relieve individuals, and
the tariff_ act of 1842 to relieve the countryP-Remz'm'seenees of an old W/zzgr.
.JINAVH OJ. ONIA’IJEHI HGLLSEIEIM
lI
l"
I!
II!
.'I'
II‘
A
i
It
jlu -
1"‘,
ll'j
it
It
i
t
l
l
I.
l
I
I lit
l "l' 2

364 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
and the further thought that any such attempt at coercion would
be resisted by the States through which such troops would be
compelled to pass, did prevail in South Carolina. At any rate the
ordinance passed, and it was backed up by resolutions to the
effect that any appeal from it to the United. States Supreme
Court would be punishable as an offence, and that any attempt
at force on the part of the general government would be followed
by the secession of the State. '
This Ordinance, which went into effect Feb. I, 18 3 3, placed the
State in the attitude of forcible resistance to the laws of the
i United States. ‘A certiﬁed copy of it. reached the President in
December, L832, the Legislature of the State in the meantime
passing laws taking back all those powers it had parted with to
the central government, and rapidly placing it on a war footing.
Soon after its receipt, the President, Dec. 16, 1832, issued his
celebrated proclamation to the people of the State. It is im-
portant as showing how the ﬁrst overt nulliﬁcation, and ﬁrst
direct attempt at secession, was met, and that by an executive
who, though not of the extreme school of rigid interpreters of
the Constitution, wasyet sufficiently inclined that way to be the
national representative of the then existing Democracy. The
Proclamation (I) exhorted the people of South Carolina to obey
the laws of Congress. (2) Pointed out the illegality of their
procedure. (3) Showed that the general government was one
in which the people of all the States were collectively repre-
sented. (4) Afﬁrmed that Representatives in Congress are
Representatives of the United States and not of particular States,
are paid by the United States and are not accountable to the
State for their legitimate acts. (5) Concluded, therefore, that
a the government was not a League, but a government, whether
formed by compact or in any other way; that it operated on in-
‘_dividuals, not on- States; that the States parted with enough of
if their powers 'to make a nation; that the claim of a right to
secede was not the mere withdrawing from a contract, but was
destructive of the unity of a nation; that it would be a solecism
to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection
with other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing an
THE UNITED STATES. 365
offence. (6) Expressed his determination to enforce the laws,
even by a resort to force if necessary.
_ Without recourse to Congress, then in session, but in the ex-
ercise of the power he already possessed as executive, he threw
a naval force into Charleston Harbor and proceeded to collect
the duties under the Tariff of 1832. In January, however, he
was forced toask for legislation to aid him in the enforcement
of the laws.‘ A bill was consequently prepared in the Senate
which was deemed adequate. Its provisions provoked intense
hostility. Debate was long and acrimonious. Notwithstanding
the fact that it was shown to contain no new feature, and had
the support of such conservative-minded men as Webster, it was
denounced as unconstitutional, as tending to civil war, as a
“ Force Bill,” as “the Bloody Bill,” etc. It was a bill to enforce
the Tariff Act of 1832. It passed, was signed by the President,
and duly executed. South Carolina did not secede on account
of it, and no State was injured by its passage and enforcement.
All in all it was probably the best measure which could have
been devised for the emergency. At any rate it made the Presi-.
dent master of the situation, and rampant nulliﬁcation subsided.
Soon after the opening of Congress in December Calhoun re-
signed the Vice-Presidency and entered the Senate, where he
took early occasion to say that his State had never intended to
resist the government by force, and as an evidence of it he called
attention to the fact that a recent meeting of nulliﬁers had been
held at which it was agreed that all thought of forcible resistance
should be postponed till after the Congress had adjourned.
T WENT Y-SEC 0ND CONGRESS—Second Session—Met
Dec. 3, 1832. The most important act was that spoken of in
the preceding paragraph, except perhaps the compromise Tariff
Act. This act, conceived by Clay in a spirit of compromise, met
two requirements: (I) the verdict of the last Presidential election;
(2) the wishes of those engaged in nulliﬁcation, not fully, per-i
haps, but sufﬁciently to show that the friends of Protection were
not necessarily the enemies of their opponents. Its weakness
was that of all compromises. It was immediately heralded by
the nulliﬁers as their vindication, and amid great rejoicing was
366 POLITICAL HISTORY or
proclaimed as a surrender of “ the American system ” and V a
justiﬁcation of the South Carolina status. It did not enact any-
thing afﬁrmatively, but taking the Tariff of 18 32 as a basis, pro-
ceeded to emasculate it by a dry rot repeal extending over a
period of ten years (till 1842), during all which time there was
to be a gradual biennial reduction of duties, till in the end no
higher rate than 20 per cent. should survive. I
The President continued his war on the National _Bank, but
was headed off by its friends. The Public Land Question came
up again in the shape of a bill to turn the proceeds of sales over
to the States as a loan. A pocket veto settled its fate.
The count of the electoral vote-in February, 1833, revealed,
for President, Jackson 219, Clay 49, Floyd II, Wirt 7; for Vice-
President, Van Buren I89, Sergeant 49, Wilkins 30, Lee I 1, E11-
maker 7. Congress adjourned sine a'z'e, March 3, 1833. Jack‘
son and Van Buren were sworn into ofﬁce March 4, 1833.
XII.
JACKSON’S SECOND ADMINISTRATION.
March 4, 1833-—March 3, 1837.
ANDREW JACKSON, TENN., President. MARTIN VAN BUREN, N. Y.,
Vz'ee~P1'es2'de;zt.
Congresses. ' Sessions.
1, December 2, 1833—June 30, 1834..
2, December I, 1834-March 3, 1835.
I, December 7, 1835—July 4, 1836.
2, December 5, 1836- March 3, 1837.
TWENTY-THIRD CONGRESS.
TWENTY-FOURTH CONGRESS. {
ELECTORAL V0 T E.*

_ Democrat. ' Nat. Republican. Anti-Mason.
. ' Basis of And. ack- M. Vah Clay, J. Ser: Wirt, Amos Ell-
States. 47,700- Vote. son, enn. Buren,N.Y. Ky. geant, Pa. Va. maker, Pa.
Alabama . . . . . . . .. 5 7 . 7 7 .. .. .. . .
Connecticut . . . . . .. 6 _ 8 . . . . 8 8
Delaware . . . . . . . I 3 . . . . 3 3
Georgia... . . . . . 9 II 11 II . ..
Illinois . . . . . . . . . .. 3 - 5 . 5 5
Indiana . . . . . . . . . .. 7 9 9 ‘9
* ‘There were two vacancies. The South Carolina vote went to John Floyd and
Henry Lee. William Wilkins, Pa., got 30 of the scattering votes. The popular
vote'was: Andrew Jackson, 687,502; Henry Clay, 530,189 ; William Wirt, 33,108.
THE UNITED STATES. ' 367
Electoral Vote—Continued.

Democrat. Nat. Republican. Anti-Mason.
Basis of And. Jack- M. Vah 1'? Clay, J. Ser: \Twin, Amos EIC
States. 47,700. Vote. son, Tenn. Buren,N.Y. Ky. geant, Pa. Va. maker, Pa.
Kentucky......... 13 15 .. .. 15 I5 .. ..
Louisiana.......... 3 s 5 5 .- co 00 00
Maine............. 8 10 10 10 .. .. .. ..
Maryland . . . . . . . - ~ 8 IO 3 3 5 5 0 o 0 0
Massachusetts . . . . . 12 14 . . . 14 I4 . . . .
. . . . - - o o 2 4- 4 4 0 0 c o 0 0 0
Missouri........... 2 4. 4 4 .~. .. co ~-
New Hampshire.. . Q 5 7 7 7 o o o o o o 0 0
New Jersey....-... 6 8 8 8 .0 00 o. 00
New York . . . . . . .. 4o 42 42 42 . . . . . . ..
North Carolina.. .. I3 15 IS IS 0 o a. 00 00
Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 21 21 21 .. . . . . ..
Pennsylvania . . . . . . 28 3o 30 sc. . . . . . . . .
Rhode Island...... 2 4 .. .. 4 4 .. ..
South Carolina. . . . 9 11 sc. sc. . . . . . . . .
Tennessee . . . . . . .. 13 15 15 15 .. .. .. ..
Vermont . . . . . . . . .. 5 7 .. .. .. 7 7
Virginia . . . . . . . . . . 21 23 23 23 . . . . . . ~_._.
Totals.. . . . . ..240 288 219 189 49 49 _7' 7
THE CABINET
Secretary of State . . . . . . . .Lewis McLane, Del.
Secretary of Treasury. . . ..William Duane, Pa.
Secretary of War . . . . . . . .Lewis Cass, Mich . . . . . . . . . . .Continued.
Secretary of Navy . . . . . . ..Levi Woodbury, N. H. . .. . . . “
Attorney-General . . . . . . . .Roger B. Taney, Md . . . . . . . . “
Postmaster-General.. . . . . . William T. Barry, Ky. . . . . . .. “
Jackson's Cabinets were very ﬂuctuating. This one _was ar-
ranged, the better to carry on his war against the United States
Bank. But Mr. Duane refused to obey his order to remove the
deposits from the Bank on the plea that they were unsafe there,
that they had been used for political purposes, or for any reason
whatever. Nor would he resign his ofﬁce. He on the contrary
alleged that the President’s action was unnecessary, arbitrary,
and unjust. He was removed, and Roger B. Taney took his
place. The deposits were then transferred to favorite State
banks. The National Bank, thus leftwithout bankable resource,
began to call in its loans and wind up business, in the midst of
great ﬁnancial embarrassment and commercial distress.
T WEN T Y-T HIRD C ON GRESS—First Session.-—-Met Dec.
2, 1833'. Organized by re-electing Andrew Stevenson, Speaker,
by a majority of- 81. The war on the Bank culminated during
363 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
this session. Enough Democratic Senators united with the
National Republicans to censure the President for his removal
of the Bank deposits. This was tabled in the House, which
then committed itself by a resolution not to vote for a re-charter
of the'Bank. Thus the President carried his position by indirec-
tion, and the tedious, bitter, demoralizing, and, so far as Jackson
was concerned, personal, struggle ended. Even the commercial
and industrial hardship entailed by the loss of so powerful a
ﬁnancial agent was quoted as an evidence of the truth of the
President’s charges against it.* .
The Post-ofﬁce Department, which had been conducted under
the Treasury Department until 1829, and then set apart as dis~
tinct, came up for investigation. As this was an administration
measure, the Department was declared by a House investigating
committee to be corrupt, and a bill for its reorganization passed.
The President and Senate were in a perpetual snarl. The
latter rejected his pet nominations, among them that of Taney
for the Treasury, and Stevenson, the Speaker, as Minister to Eng-
land. It also attempted to limit his political removals and ap-
pointments, by a species of Tenure of Ofﬁce bill. Congress
adjourned june 30, I834.
T WENT Y- THIRD CONGRESS—Second Session—Met
Dec. 1, 1834. This session was mainly devoted to ﬁnance. The
deposit of public moneys in the State banks was giving rise to
trouble. As a system it was inconvenient ‘and dangerous, though
tenaciously adhered to by the Democrats. Its opponents pro-
posed as a substitute _a system of Sub-Treasuries at various busi-
ness centres, through whose agents the Treasurer might act
‘safely and promptly. This the Democrats voted down, only,
however, to fall in with and adopt it at a later date, as their best
weapon with which to ﬁght those who favored re-chartering a
National Bank. Slight encouragement was given the system of
* It is perhaps needless to say that the leading Democratic opponents of the Bank,
such as Benton, rested their case on a denial of the right of the government to
make anything money except gold and silver. They rigidly interpreted the coinage
clause of the Constitution, and popularized the idea that Democrats then constituted
“ the hard money party.” A
THE UNITED STATES. 369
Internal Improvements, by an appropriation therefor. Congress
adjourned sine die’, March 3, 1835.
T WENT Y-FOURTH CONGRESS—First Session—Met
Dec. 7, 1835. Organized by electing James K. Polk, Tenn, as
Speaker. Neither branch was a happy body. An amalgamated
opposition to the Democrats controlled the Senate, and the
Democratic majority in the House was divided into two factions,
one administration, anxious to advance Van Buren’s chances for
the Presidency, the other anti-administration, anxious to advance
those of Hugh L. White, Tenn. Fortunately no measures of
party moment arose. The leading act of the ‘session was one
which passed in pursuance of the President’s announcement in
his message that the public debt would soon be paid, and his
advice that some method of disposing of the surplus revenue
should be provided. It is of moment now, in view of the fact
that a similar proposition is being mooted, and bids fair to
become a party issue.
SURPLUS REVENUE—Clay’s previous plan to distribute
the surplus arising from the sale of public lands among the
States was premature, because the government had need of the
money. Now, the extinguishment of the public debt made a
similar plan more timely. But how to get at it was a grave
question. Every way seemed unsatisfactory till a plan of regu-
lating the deposit of public moneys in the State banks was hit
upon. Deposits had hitherto been made in the “pet banks.”
Now the surplus revenue was to be divided in proportion to the
population of each State, and the share of each, as thus ascer-
tained, was to be deposited in its designated State bank or
banks, for the use of the State, the same to be regarded as in
the nature of a loan for whose return, when called on, the State
stood as a pledge. This ingenious act passed-both Houses in
june, 1836, to take effect ]an. 1, 1837. It applied to all surplus
above $ 5,000,000, and under it $26,101,644 were distributed. It
ceased to operate in less than a year, by act of Congress, owing
to hard times. The Distribution bill _was signed by the Presi-
dent reluctantly. The promised beneﬁt to the States did not
accrue, nor did those who favored it with the hope of advancing
24.
370 PoLITIcAL HISTORY.
their Presidential chances reap the harvest they expected. The
panic of 1837 burst upon the country all the same, and the Dem-
ocratic party suffered defeat in 1840. Arkansas became a State
June 15, 1836. Congress adjourned July 4, 1836.
PANIC OF 18 3 7.——The destruction of the United - States
Bank, the scaling of duties under the Tariff Act of 18 3 3, the mul-
tiplication of State banks and introduction of their variable and
doubtful notes, made the ﬁnancial situation uncertain, distressed
business, and tended directly toward panic. This was precipi-
tated by an order of the President, issued through his Secretary
of Treasury (July, 1836), to the effect that the Treasury should
cease to take'State bank notes in payment for Public Lands, but
should, in the future, take only gold and silver. From a Treasury
standpoint this was justiﬁable, for the notes of the State banks
had been piling up in the Treasury Department in great quan-
tities. But as such a result had been invited by the destruction
of the National Bank, with its uniform and stable currency, it
looked as if the President were recoiling from it. His specie
order speedily swamped the State banks, except the “ pet” ones,
which were banks designated to receive the national deposits,
by creating a demand for gold and silver they could not meet.
The panic broke on the country the next year, and the direst
distress prevailed in every department of business.
ELECTION OF 1836.—This contest opened early by the
nomination (1834-35) of H. L. White, Tenn., by the Legislature
of Alabama. This was to head off Jackson, who sought the
nomination of Van Buren. The White faction was the rest,
residue and remainder of the old Crawford faction, members of
the extreme school of rigid interpreters, strict State-rights men,
former nulliﬁers, unyielding opponents of Jackson. But the Van
Buren forces were not to be demoralized in this way. The era
of caucus and legislative nomination had passed. A popular
convention met in Baltimore in May, 1835, and placed Martin
Van Buren, N. Y., in nomination for President, with Richard M.
Johnson, Ky., for Vice-President. This was called a “Loco-
Foco” convention, the term having come into popular use the
previous winter in New York as a set-off to the term “ Whig,”


;.‘....._. . ,.
w. a 4
Q m 6H...- .Ewﬁwﬂf
‘(.091 4: Inri
‘I.
l

‘Him CZSJMU mQHv/‘Hmw w>ZHA ~ZO<< OCWHOZ EOCmmv “PHI HVEEA/Umﬁzl:>.
371
372 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
which was at the same time applied to the National Republican
party. The “ Loco-Focos ” promulgated a platform, the impor-
tant plank in which was adherence to gold and silver as the only
proper circulating medium.
The Whigs, Anti-Masons, “and all opposed to” Van Buren,
united on William Henry Harrison, Ohio, for President, and
Francis Granger, N. Y., for Vice-President, who had been the
declared nominees of a State convention held in Pennsylvania
(1835)
To the Alabama nomination of H. L. White for President had
been added that of john Tyler, Va., for Vice-President.
Feeling that the election could be thrown into the House,
where the Democratic division would insure the choice of an
opposition candidate, Ohio placed john McLean in nomination
for the Presidency, and Massachusetts, Daniel Webster.
Thus shaped, the election took place in November, 1836, and
resulted in a majority of Van Buren electors.
T EVEN T Y—FOURT H CONGRESS—Second Session—Met
Dec. 5, 1836. This session was not notable for bills passed,
but is memorable for the attempt made by the Southern mem-
bers to recover the territory west of the Sabine (Texas), which
had been lost at the time of the Florida purchase (1819). Con-
trary to the advice contained in the President’s message, against
- interference between Mexico and the Republic of Texas (Texas
had seceded from the Mexican Republic and set up for herself),
the Senate passed a bill recognizing Texan independence, which
the House rejected.
A NE W POLITICAL FORCE—It is further memorable
as directly recognizing a new political force which had been incor-
porated in 1833 as the National Anti-Slavery Society, which had
been working quietly and suasively by means of lectures, tracts
and newspapers, and which, in its preference of abroad humanity
for narrow code, had given offence to the South by technical
violations of the existing regulations respecting the return of
fugitives. The mob violence which had been resorted to in
several Northern cities for. the purpose of breaking up the
sources of- abolition literature having failed, and there being an
THE UNITED STATES. 373
alarming increase of the same in the South, the President
advised Congress to pass a bill construing such literature as
incendiary and prohibiting its carriage by the United States
mails. The times were not yet ripe for this summary method,
. and the bill was rejected.
THE ELECTORAL COUNT—Michigan was admitted as a
State, Jan. 26, 1837. The electoral count in February resulted
in 170 for Van Buren; 73 for Harrison; 26 for White; 14 for
Webster; and 11 for W. P. Mangum, N. C., for President; and
for Vice-President, 147 for Johnson; 77 for Granger; 47 for
Tyler; and 23 for William Smith, Ala. There being no choice
for Vice—President, the House elected Richard M. Johnson, Ky.
Congress adjourned sine die, March 3, 1837, and on March 4
Van Buren and Johnson were sworn into ofﬁce.
Jackson signalized his retiracy by a farewell address, after the .
manner of Washington, in which he vindicated his administrative
career, and congratulated the country on'its peace, prosperity,
and full triumph of the Democratic principles and party. 'His
own peace of mind had been exalted by the passage of a resolu-
tion, March 16, 1837, expunging the Clay resolution censuring
his conduct in the removal of the public moneys from the
National Bank.
XIII.
VAN BUREN’S ADMINISTRATION.
March 4, I837—-March 3, I841.
MARTIN VAN BUREN, N. Y., President. RICHARD M. JOHN-
SON, KY., Wee-President‘.
Congresses. Sessions.
I, September4, 1837—October 16, 1837, extra session.
TWENTY-FIFTH CONGRESS. {2, December 4, 1837-July 9, 1838.
3, December 3, 1838~March 3, 1839.
I, December 2, 1839-July 21, 1840.
CONGRESS. {2, December 7, 184O_March 3, 1841,
374 PoLITIcAL HISTORY OF
ELECTORAL VO TE.*

Democrat. Whig.
Basis of in. Van Bu- R. M. John: a. H. Harri- F. Grange;
States. 47,700. Votes. ren, N. Y. son, Ky. son, Ohio. .‘ Y.
Alabama.......... 7 4 4 .. .
Arkansas.......... 1 3 3 3 .. .
Connecticut . . . . . . - 6 8 8 8 . . .
Delaware . . . . . . . . . I 3 . . . 3 3
Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1 1 7 , 7 . . .1
Illinois............ 3 5 4 4 .. ..
Indiana . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 5 5 . . .
Kentucky......... 13 15 .. .. 9 9
Louisiana . . . . . . . . . 3 5 so. so. .3 . . .
Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10 IO 10 . . . .
Maryland . . . . . . . . . 8 10 . . . . 10 so.
Massachusetts . . . . .. 12 14 . . . . sc. 14
Michigan.......... 1 3 .. .. .. ..
Mississippi . . . . . . . . 2 4 4 4 . . . .
Missouri . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 4 4 . . . .
New Hampshire. . . . 5 7 7 7 . . . .
NewJersey........ 6 8 .. .. 8 8
New York . . . . . . . . 40 42 42 42 . .
North Carolina. 13 15 15 ﬁat-5 .. ..
Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 21 .. . . 21 21
Pennsylvania . . .. 28 3o 30 30 . . - .
Rhode Island. . . . .. 2 4 4 4 . . .
South Carolina.. . . . 9 1 I so. so. . . . .
Tennessee . . . . . . .. 13 I5 . . . . 15 15
Vermont.........-.. 5 ‘ 7 ' .. .. 7 7
Virginia . . . . . . . . .. 21 23 23 so. I . . 80.
Totals. . . . . . . . 242 294 170 147 73 77
THE CABINET.
Secretary of State . . . . . . .John Forsyth, Ga . . . . . . . .Continued.
Secretary of Treasury. . . .Levi Woodbury, N. H . . . . “
Secretary of War . . . . . . . .Joel R. Poinsett, S. C.
Secretary of Navy . . . . . ..Mahlon Dickerson, N. J.. .Continued.
Attorney-General.. . . . . ..Benjamin F. Butler, N. Y... “
Postmaster-General .. . . . ..Amos Kendall, Ky.. . . . . .. “
THE INA UG URAL.—Van Buren’s inaugural teemed with
faith in his predecessor and promises to abide by his policy.
It congratulated the country on its prosperity and peace, and
laid down as his chart. the doctrines of the Democratic party.
This commitment was untimely. It made him the executor of
*Webster got the 14 votes of Massachusetts; Mangurn the II votes of South
Carolina; White 26 votes from various Southern States. For Vice-President, John
Tyler got 47 and William Smith 23. The popular vote was, Van Buren, 761,549,
15 States; Harrison, 7 States; White, 2 States; Webster, I State; Mangum, I
State—236,656 votes.
THE UNITED STATES. 375
the wreck invited by a ﬁnancial policy which would have in time
carried even Jackson down. The State banks had ﬂooded the
country with a “ wild-cat ” currency. Values were inﬂated and
speculation rife. The President’s (Jackson's) order to take noth-
ing but gold and silver in payment for public lands had by this
time resulted in a heavy gold premium, and the impossibility of
getting specie at all by the weaker banks. The folly of the law
ordering the distribution of the surplus among the States was
now apparent, for the surplus was in the keeping of the “pet
banks,” and they could not respond to the order to pay money
over to the States which they had loaned out and could not
promptly collect. On May IO, 183 7, a general suspension of the
banks took place. This stopped the treasury, for its deposits
were with the banks. The panic of 1837 was on, with its cruel
and unparalleled wreck of every vital business interest.
T WEN T KFIFT H CONGRESS—Extra Session.——Called
Sept. 4, 1837, to consider the ﬁnancial situation. House organized
by electing James K. Polk, Tenn., Speaker. Both branches Dem-
ocratic; House by a majority of I 3. The President’s message
defended _Iackson’s “ Specie Circular,” but recommended the Gov-
ernment to break off from the banks, whether State or National,
and rely on an Independent Treasury System,* with an issue of
Treasury notes; further, to‘ stop paying the deposits due the
States under the act then in force. The message met with vio-
lent opposition from Whigs and many Democrats. Clay, Web-
ster, Cushing and others made it a text for the review of Dem—
ocratic ﬁnance, from the beginning of the Government down.
The Democratic opponents of the message switched off into a
separate party, calling themselves “Conservatives.” The bills
enacted sustained the Administration and marked the era of a
complete separation between State and National banking. They
stopped the distribution of the surplus among the States,
extended the time to merchants who had borrowed National
* This ‘was really the Sub-Treasury plan proposed by the National Republi-
cans in the 23d Congress, and then rejected by the Democrats. It was now
opposed by the Whigs, who saw, since the distress was on, an opportunity to re-
establish a National bank, and, as they reasoned, thus lift the country out of panic.
376 POLITICAL HISTORY.
moneys, and sanctioned the issue of Treasury notes to the ex-
tent of $10,000,000.
The interest of the session was heightened by Calhoun’s reso-
lutions in the Senate against interference with slavery in the
States, and to the effect “that it would be inexpedient and im-
politic to abolish or control it in the District of Columbia or the
Territories.” He was loud in his praise of the Missouri Com-
promise of 1820. From this time on the subject of slavery came
up in nearly every session of Congress, till 1863. Congress ad-
journed, Oct. 16, 1837.
T WENT Y-FIFT H CONGRESS—First Regular Session.—
Met Dec. 4, 1837. The coalition between the Whigs and Con~
servative Democrats still prevailed, and it defeated in the House
the Senate bill to establish an Independent Treasury, though it
came to the relief of that department by authorizing it to accept
as current the notes of specie-paying banks. This innocent-
looking measure really permitted the Administration to get away
from the hampering effects of jackson’s Specie Order without
the humiliation of formally withdrawing it.
The determination of the Southern States to regain Texas
came boldly forth this session by a bill for annexation, which did
not pass. It will be curious now to watch the growth of this
idea of enlarged slave territory, ﬁrst by direct acquisition, and
then by the doctrine that, notwithstanding the Missouri Com-
promise, all Government territory was open to slavery; and to
note that the idea kept even pace in its growth with the loss of
political power occasioned by a preponderance of free States and
the rapid growth of the Anti-Slavery sentiment. Congress ad-
journed, july 9, 1838. i
T WENT Y-FIFTH CONGRESS ——Second Session. ~— Met
Dec. 3, I8 38. There was no political legislation of moment dur-
ing this session. The Administration was as if wrapped up in
a hard Democratic shell, and the drift of sentiment in Congress
and the country was away from it and toward the Whigs, or
some element equally liberal in its interpretation of the Consti-
tution and willing to propound and risk something for the relief
of the country. Congress adjourned sine die, March 3, 1839.

CALEB CUSlllNG.

WM. LLOYD GARRISON.
377
378 , POLITICAL HISTORY OF
T WEN T Y-SIX T H C ON GRESS—First Session—Met Dec.
2, 1839. The organization of the House was delayed by a closely
contested Congressional election in New Jersey. Five Democrats
contested the seats of ﬁve Whigs. Neither set was admitted until
after the choice of a Speaker, which fell to Robert M. T. Hunter,
Va., a Whig, and in favor of the Sub-Treasury plan. The Whigs
in this instance were aided by a few regular Democrats and by
the friends of Calhoun, who for several sessions had swung free
lances in both House and Senate. The ﬁnal decision of the
case was not had till in March, 1840, when the Democratic con—
testants were seated, making the full Democratic strength 122,
and the Whig strength I 13. The leading act of the session was
one providing for the “ collection, safe-keepingiand disbursing of
the public money.” It was simply Monroe’s Independent Treas-
ury plan, and it was passed by a small majority in‘both Houses
and signed by the President. The Whigs opposed it under the
lead of Clay, but some of them, as Cushing, favored it. heavy blow was aimed at the system of Internal Improvement
by an act suspending all appropriations therefor. The practice
of “ pairing off” began during this session. J. Q. Adams intro-
duced a resolution to censure it, but it was not put on its pas-
sage. The practice has grown ever since—grown to be a
nuisance. John Tyler, Va., an ultra Democrat of the Calhoun
school, won his way to the Vice-Presidency on the Whig ticket
by his opposition to the Administration during this session.
Congress adjourned, July 21, 1840.
ELECTION ‘OF 1840.—The Whigs took the lead in National
Convention at Harrisburg, Pa., Dec. 4, 1839. Clay, the ablest
and most pronounced Whig in the country, was not deemed
available as a candidate owing to a desire to conciliate the Anti-
Mason and other opposing elements, and to the thought that
one of military prowess would go through, as Jackson had done.
The nomination for President was, therefore, conferred on‘ Wil-
liam Henry Harrison, Ohio, and for Vice-President on John
Tyler, Va. No platform.
The Democratic Convention met at Baltimore, May 5, 1840,
and unanimously renominated Van Buren, leaving‘ the States to
THE UNITED STATES. 379
/
ﬁll up the Vice-Presidency. A lengthy platform was adopted,
afﬁrming (1) “That the Federal Government was one of limited
powers; ” (2) “ That the Constitution does not confer the right
on the Government to carry on a system of internal improve-
ment ; ” (3) nor to assume the debts of the States contracted for
internal improvement; (4) “Justice and sound policy forbids the
Government to foster one branch of industry to the detriment of
another or one section to the injury of another; ” (5) urged econ»
omy; (6) Congress has no power to charter a U. S.bank; (7) and
no power to interfere with the domestic institutions of the States ;
(8) Government money must be separated from banking institu-
tions ; (9) this country is the asylum of the oppressed of all
nations.
The Abolition or Liberty party nominated, Nov. 13, 1839,
James G. Birney, N. Y., for President, and Francis Lemoyne,
Pa., for Vice-President. Its platform favored (I) The abolition
of slavery in the District of Columbia and Territories ; (2) Stop-
page of the inter-State salve trade; (3) General opposition to
slavery to the full extent'of constitutional power. ‘
All parties were now ready. The campaign was the liveliest
on record. The October elections inspired the Whigs. Their
attack on Van Buren’s ﬁnancial policy was telling all along the
line‘. The furore was intensiﬁed by the introduction of the spec-
tacular. Log-cabins with the latch-strings hanging out, and
barrels of hard cider, were made the type of “ out West” gener-
osity and happy pioneer life. The meetings were frequent and
extended into every county and town. The result was a Whig
victory of astounding magnitude, Van Buren carrying but ﬁve
Southern and two Northern States.
T WEN T Y-SIX T H CONGRESS—Second Session.———Met
Dec. 7, 1840. A quiet session and no work of political moment.
Electoral vote counted in February, 1841, showing Harrison 234
and Van Buren 60 for President; for Vice-President, Tyler,
234; Johnson, 48; L. W. Tazewell, Va., 11; and James K.
Polk, Tenn., I. Congress adjourned sine die, March 3, 1841,
and on March 4 Harrison and Tyler were sworn into ofﬁce.
, 380
POLITICAL HISTORY OF
HARRISON’S AND TYLER’S ADMINISTRATION.
XIV.
March 4, 1841—March 3, 1845.
WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON, OHIo, President.
Congresses.
TWENTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS. {
TWENTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS.
Vice-President.
(Harrison died April 4, 1841, having served one month.)
ELECTORAL VOTE.*
Sessioizs.
I, May 31, I84I-September I 3, 1841. Extra Sess.
2, December 6, 1841-August 31, 1842.
3, December 5, 1842—March 3, 1843.
JOHN TYLER, VA.,
1, December 4, 1843-]une I7, 1844.
2, December 2, 1844—March 3, 1845.

Democrat.
r—— ‘ ﬁ r--—-—-*"_—\
Wm. H. Har- J. Tyler, M. Van R.M.John-
rison, Ohio. Va. Buren, N. Y. son, Ky.
. I . U 7 7
. . . . 3 3
8 8 . . . .
3 3 o . . .
I! ll . . . .
. . O I s s
9 9 Q . O 0
Is . Q Q I
s s - - -~
10 IO 0 o o .
10 IO 0 g o 0
I4 .4 o a
3 3 H I o
4 4 0-0 0 o
O O O O ‘ 4
. . . . 7 7
8 8 . . . .
' 42 42 0 o o o
Is 15 0 o . .
2! 21 o o 0 .
3o O . O O
4 4 o o o o
o . . . II sc.
15 Is 0 o o .
7 7 . I O O
234 234 60 48
Basis of
States. 47,700. - Votes.
Alabama . . . . . . . . . . 5 7
Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . I 3
Connecticut . . . . . . . . 6 8
Delaware.......... I 3
Georgia. . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1!
Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5
Indiana . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 9
Kentucky. 13 !5
Louisiana........... 3 5
Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10
Maryland . . . . . . . . . .. 8 10
Massachusetts . . . . . . . 12 14
Michigan . . . . . . . . . . I 3
Mississippi. . . . . . 2 4.
Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4
New Hampshire. . . . 5 7
New Jersey . . . . . . . . 6 8
New York . . . . . . . . . . 4o 42
North Carolina... . . .. I 3 15
Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 21
Pennsylvania . . . . . . . 28 30
Rhode Island . . . . . . 2 4
South Carolina. . . . .. 9 1!
Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . 13 15
Vermont . . . . . . . . . . 5 7
Virginia............ 21 23
Totals . . . . . . . . . 242 294
* L. W. Tazewell got the 1! votes of South Carolina for Vice-President, and
James K. Polk got I vote out of the column of States set down as for Johnson.
The popular vote was: Harrison, 1,275,017—19 States; Van Buren, 1,128,702—7
States ; Birney, 7,059.
THE UNITED STATES. 381
THE CABINE T.
Secretary of State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Daniel Webster, Mass.
Secretary of Treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Thomas Ewing, Ohio.
Secretary of War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .John Bell, Tenn.
Secretary of Navy . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . .G. E. Badger, N. C.
Attorney-General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .John J. Crittenden, Ky.
Postmaster-General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Francis Granger, N. Y.
THE [NA UGURAL—Harrison’s Inaugural was a genial,
assuring paper, with a blow at Jackson’s excessive use of the
veto power and his “to the victor belong the spoils” theory,
and at both his and Van Buren’s attempts to make political capi-
tal out of the currency question. On March 17 he called an
extra session of Congress, to convene May 31, to consider the
revenue and ﬁnancial situation. He died April‘ 4, and John
Tyler succeeded. This was the ﬁrst time a Vice-President suc-
ceeded to the Presidency on the death of the President.
T WENT Y-SE VEN T H CONGRESS—Extra Session—Met,
pursuant to call, May 31, 1841. House organized by electing
John White, Ky., Whig, Speaker. Whig majority in Senate 6;
in House 25. The Whig majority was harmonious and had a
plain duty to fulﬁl, as they thought, for their promises to the
country had been explicit during the campaign and their policy
well outlined. They therefore began by repealing the Indepen-
dent Treasury Act, passing a Bankrupt Law, and an act to dis-
tribute certain proceeds of public lands among the States, all of
which were signed by President Tyler. But when they came
to substitute for the Independent Treasury a U. S. Fiscal Bank,
even though it was an acknowledged improvement on the old
U. S. Bank, the President interposed with a veto, his reason
being that it was unconstitutional. This sudden swing to the
President’s old strict construction notions alarmed the Whigs.
Not wishing to break with him they asked him to frame a bill
which he could sign. After consulting his Cabinet, he presented
one which was passed by both Houses, but which, to the aston-
ishment of the Whigs and the country, he also vetoed. The
Cabinet felt they had been insulted, and, with the exception of
Webster, resigned. The Whigs grew indignant over their be-
trayal, and in an address to the country declared the President
an impediment to their work of reform and repudiated him as
382 ' ' 3 PoLITIcAL HISTORY or
the head, and as a member, of the party. Congress adjourned,
September 13, 1841.
T WENT Y-SE VENT H C ONGRESS—Fjrst Regular Session.
-——Met Dec. 6, 1841, amid great political uncertainty. The Presi-
dent’s course had demoralized the Whigs, and the fall elections
had gone against them. He had reorganized his shattered Cabi-
net out of very conservative material, and it stood, Secretary of
State, Daniel Webster, Mass; Secretary of Treasury, Walter
Forward, Pa.; Secretary of War, John McLean, Ohio; Secre-
tary of Navy, A. P. Upshur, Va. ;v Attorney-General, Hugh S.
Legaré, S. C.; Postmaster-General, Charles A. Wickliffe, Ky.
The folly of having placed him on the ticket was apparent to all,
for in accepting a place there, with the implied pledge to favor
Whig doctrine, he certainly renounced none of his old rigid con-
struction sentiments which threw him into the Calhoun school,
and made it impossible for him to ‘support Van Buren and the
Democratic ticket. He was certain of a kind of support, how-'
ever repudiated by the Whigs, for the Democrats who saw re-
turning success through the Whig demoralization, naturally
encouraged him in every measure calculated to further stampede
them.
TARIFF ACT OF I842.—Thus inauspiciously the regular
session began. The Whigs came to the front with a Tariff act
to amend the act of 1833, under whose scaling terms the duties
had run so low that government receipts were now less than the
expenses. The bill awakened the old animosities of the school
of rigid interpreters, and called forth almost the old debates of
1828 and 1832, which, it will be remembered, were against the
constitutionality of the Protective idea, and which involved the
question of nulliﬁcation. It passed, however, but was unfor-
tunately coupled with‘ a clause providing for the distribution of
any surplus that might arise to the States. The President
vetoed it, as violative of the compromise of 1833, which, as to
protection and revenue, was to run till 1842, and as to non-dis-
crimination against the planting interests was practically without
time. Another was passed without protective features. This
was also vetoed. A third was passed, without the protective
THE UNITED STATES. - 383
and the surplus clauses, and was signed Aug. 30, 1842. This
became the Tariff act of 1842. It found a prevailing rate of 20
per cent. on leading articles, and on the principle that the gov-
ernment must have revenue, raised the rates some 10 per cent,
cottons going to 30 per cent, woollens to 40 per cent., silks to
$2.50 per pound, bar iron to $25 per ton, and pig iron to $9 per ton.
Tea and coffee were still free, but sugar went to 2% cents per
pound. Thebill to distribute the surplus was passed separately
and vetoed. In the Senate debates on this Tariff, Clay and Cal-
houn, who stood together in the compromise Tariff of 1833,
parted company, and the former charged the latter with revamp-
ing the “free trade theories of a certain party in the British
Parliament.”
THE SLAVERY QUES T [ON—An exciting period in the
session was reached when John Q. Adams, notwithstanding the
previous decision of the House to refuse to entertain petitions
for the abolition of slavery, presented a batch of them, on the
ground that “the right of petition” was guaranteed by the Con-
stitution. For this an unsuccessful attempt was made to vote
him censurable. Scarcely had the ﬂurry over this subsided when
Joshua R. Giddings, Ohio, moved (March, 1842) his celebrated
resolutions to the effect that slavery only exists by force of posi-
tive law, and is limited to the territory and jurisdiction wherein
such law is found. That, being a curtailment of the rights of
man, it cannot go beyond such jurisdiction by force of any com-
mon law or custom, nor ‘be instituted anywhere except by
express stipulation of the authorities interested. This, in con-
nection with the claim that the government had exclusive juris~
diction over its unincorporated and incorporated territory,
became the. bulwark of those who afterwards fought to exclude
slavery from the Territories. Giddings was censured by the
'House, resigned, and was vindicated by re-election.
Congress adjourned, Aug. 31, 1842.
T l/VEN T Y-SE VEN T H CONGRESS—Second Session—Met
Dec. 5, 1842. The condition of the country was still unsatis-
factory. The Treasury was empty, and $14,000,000 behind.
The government could not place a loan of $12,000,000, author-
384 POLITICAL ; HISTORY OF
ized in 1841. Treasury notes were below par. The revenues
were decreasing, for the Tariff Act of Aug. 30, 1842, had not yet
begun to operate favorably. The dominant Whigs had lost their
leader by the resignation of Clay from the Senate (March, 1842).
His repeated defeats for the Presidential nomination, the inability
of his party to fulﬁl its pledges to the people, owing to the
hostile attitude of Tyler, the direct attacks of the Administra-
tion and its “ corporal’s guard” of followers on him, had ﬁlled
him with disgust for political life. This was a terrible blow to
the party, for he had unﬂinching courage, rare tact, grand elo-
quence, unquestioned rectitude of intention, and'an advanced
ground which brought out all the magnetism of his leadership.
The best evidence of his qualities as a political captain is fur-
nished by the fact that he built and held his party without the
ordinary accessories of power and patronage. The session was
barren of political results, except a warning by Anti-Slavery
Whigs to the country to beware of the secret efforts going on to
recover Texas, in the interest of the South. '
Congress adjourned sine die, March 3, 1843.
TWEN T Y-EI GH T H CONGRESS ——First Session—Met
Dec. 4, 1843. The result of the Congressional elections had
been adverse to the Whigs. They had still a majority of four
in the Senate; but their majority of twenty-ﬁve in the House
had been turned into a Democratic majority of sixty-one. The
House therefore organized by the election of john W. jones, Va.,
Speaker. The President’s message was a political curiosity.
Contrary to all his rigid construction notions, to the freshest tra-
ditions and plainest professions of the only party now giving him
comfort and support, he favored a national paper currency, and
as to Internal Improvement, he went so far as to urge a system
for the West. Two treaties were presented to the Senate for
ratiﬁcation, one rectifying the northwest boundary, the other an-
nexing Texas. The latter was rejected, by a solid Whig vote
and a strong Democratic contingent (seven in all). This thrust
“Texas annexation” directly into politics. To annex at any
cost became a Southern policy. A free North on the line of
36° 30’ to the Paciﬁc would prove so overshadowing as to
/
THE UNITED STATES. 385
endanger the political supremacy of the South and its peculiar
institution. Of the two public improvement bills passed during
the session, one for the East, the other for the West, the Presi-
dent vetoed the former. Congress adjourned, June 17, 1844.
ELECTION OF 1844.—The Liberty-Party was ﬁrst in the
ﬁeld, in convention at Buffalo, N. Y., Aug. 30, 1843. Its candi-
date for President was James G. Birney, Mich. ; for Vice-Presi-
dent, Thomas Morris, Ohio. Its platform announced (1) human
brotherhood as the cardinal principle of democracy; (2) de-
manded divorce of the general government from slavery; (3)
stated that the party was not sectional but national, resting on
the thought that slavery was in derogation of the principle of
American liberty; (4) that the faith of the nation as originally
pledged in- all original instruments not to extend slavery beyond
its present limits had been broken; (5) that slavery is against
natural rights, therefore strictly local; (6) that the general gov-
ernment has no authority to extend it to the Territories; (7)
called on the States to enact penal laws against the return of
fugitives.
The Whigs met in national'convention at Baltimore, May I,
1844, and nominated, for President, Henry Clay, Ky., and for
Vice-President, Theodore Frelinghuysen, N. Y. A brief plat-
form announced as cardinal principles (I) “a well-regulated
national currency; ” (2) “ a tariff for revenue, discriminating with
reference to protection of domestic labor; ” (3) “ distribution of
the proceeds of sales of public lands;” (4) “a single term for
the Presidency; ” (5) reform of executive usurpation.
The Democratic Convention met at Baltimore, May 27, 1844.
This was a postponed convention from the previous December,
in order to allow the Van Buren sentiment to ferment. Calhoun
was Van Buren’s opponent, and the former was running on the
Texas annexation tide, the latter against it, not pronouncedly,
but enough so to make his slaughter desirable. Calhoun,
offended at the postponement of the convention and manner of
choosing delegates, did not appear with the South Carolina dele-
gation. His inﬂuence was not less by absence. Van Buren’s
'clear majority of the.266 delegates was turned to his defeat by
386 'PoLITIcAL HISTORY.
a resolution that the nomination should be made only by a two-
third vote. This he could not control. He withdrew on the
eighth ballot, and James K. Polk, Tenn., received the nomina-
tion for President, and George M. Dallas, Pa., for Vice-President.*
The platform afﬁrmed that of 1840, and added (I) that the Con-
stitution does not warrant the distribution of the proceeds of pub—
lic land sales among the States; (2) that the President has a
right to use the qualiﬁed (“ pocket”) veto; (3) that all of
Oregon ought to be reoccupied and Texas be annexed.
The parties thus went to the country with their candidates and
principles. Texas annexation, the Oregon (“ 54° 40’ or ﬁght”)
question, and a vigorous effort to prove that under the act of
1842 Polk and Dallas were safe tariff men, were the hinging
points of the Democrats. The Whigs drove the Protective
Tariff idea and relied greatly on the fame of their candidate.
Silas Wright, who had refused to serve on the Democratic ticket
as Vice-President, on account of the slaughter of Van Buren,
and who had resigned from the Senate to run as governor of
New York, unwittingly contributed to the election of the ticket
he had declined to run on. He went through as governor on his
individual popularity, and the National ticket followed by a bare
majority. The vote of New York elected Polk and Dallas, the
State and National elections being held on the same day. And
to this result Clay himself was an unwise contributor, for his effort
to conciliate Southern Democrats by an untimely letter favoring
postponed Texas annexation alienated enough anti-slavery
Whigs to have still overcome Polk’s popular majority in
New York. In no National election was the result so close and
doubtful in so many States. In fourteen it was not known for
several days, and in several of these the vote of the Liberty
party was a balance of power. '
T WENT Y-EIGH TH C ONGRESS—Second Session—Met
Dec. 2, 1844. President Tyler had swung, in every respect, over
to the doctrines of the extreme Southern school of Democrats, and
actively co-operated with them under the lead of his Secretary of
State, John C. Calhoun. His last message favored Texas an-
* Silas Wright, N. Y., was ﬁrst nominated for Vice-Presidenh'but declined.
THEODORE FRELINGHUYSEN.

THOMAS H. BENTON.
387
33,8 , POLITICAL HISTORY OF
nexation and the assumption of ‘ her cause with all its conse-
quences. The South was. a unit on this measure. At Ashley, S. C.,
a meeting had been held (May, 1844), seeking to combine the
Southern States in Convention, to unite themselves in a body to
Texas, if Texas was not annexed as a State to the Union. The
Texas treaty of annexation which had been rejected in the Sen—
ate was now substituted bya joint resolution to annex the State,
through a commission, it being understood that the incoming
President (Polk) would appoint such body. But at Calhoun’s
instance and to the surprise of everybody, the President deter-
mined to send out (March 3, 1845) a special messenger to
arrange terms. Only on Calhoun’s assurance that such act
would not interfere with the formal commission provided for did
the resolution secure the necessary support. It passed, and in
pursuance of it Texas was afterwards incorporated as a State,
with slavery under her own constitution, and with the proviso
_that slavery should not exist in any State formed from her ter-
ritory North of 36° 30', and that the question of slavery in any
States formed from her territory South of that line should be left
to the people of such States. Her condition being that of war
with Mexico, the War was assumed by the United States, it being
only a question of time when-the then pending armistice between
Texas and Mexico should end. Calhoun did not originally
favor war with Mexico. He thought Mexico ‘could be quieted
by a money consideration. As the‘ annexation was more his act
than the President’s, he was, after war broke out, charged with
being its author.
A bill to organize Oregon into a Territory up to 54° 40’,
away beyond the boundary claimed by England, was passed in
the - House, but the Senate failed to consider it. Harbor im—
provement bills for both East and West were passed, but vetoed.
The result of the-electoral count in ‘February showed 170 elec-
toral votes for Polk and Dallas, and 105 for Clay and Freling-
huysen. March 3d, Florida became a State of the Union. Con-
gress adjourned sine die, March 3, 1845. March 4, 1845, Polk
and Dallas were sworn into ofﬁce.
THE UNITED STATES.
389
XV.
POLK’S ADMINISTRATION.
JAMES K. POLK, TENN., President.
March 4, 1845—March 3, 1849.
Congresses.
TWENTY-NINTH CONGRESS.
THIRTIETH CONGRESS.
‘ELECTORAL VOTE.*
Basis of
States. 70,680. Votes.
Alabama . . . . . . . 7 9
Arkansas . . . . . . I 3
Connecticut. . . . .4 6
Delaware . . . . . . I 3
Georgia........ 8 10
Illinois . . . . . . . . 7 9
Indiana . . . . . . . 10 12
Kentucky . . . . . . 10 12
Louisiana . . . . . . 4
Maine. . '7
Maryland . . . . . . 6
Massachusetts . . 10
Michigan . . . . . . 3
Mississippi. . . . . 4
Missouri . . . . . . .
5
New Hampshire 4
New Jersey. . . . . 5
New York. . . . . 34
North Carolina 9
Ohio . . . . . . . . . 21
Pennsylvania . . . 24
Rhode Island . . 2
South Carolina 7
Tennessee.. . . . 11
Vermont . . . . . . . 4
O 0 O O 0 I I
Totals.. . .
Nun-‘w .
\O-s-mw~¢\\io\\ro~mi3°°\o¢\
13
6
17
275
Vice-President.
Sessions.
GEORGE M. DALLAS, PA.,
1, December I, 1845-August 10, 1846.
2, December 7, 1846—March 3, 1847.
1, December 6, 1847—August I4, 1848.
2, December.4, I848-March 3, 1849.
Whig.
Democrat.
1.75125 K. P01
Tenn. alias, P
9 9
3 3
i6 i6
9 9
12 12
.6 .8
9 9
5 S
6 6
7 7
6 6
56 5,6
5'6 ‘2'6
9 9
39 ii
I76 170
it, George Hen? Clay, Theodore Fre-T
3.
Y-
O . I .0
.:E.:'U¢O\"
8
12
7
O.
u
23
4
ii
6
.0
13?
linghuysen, N. Y.
'6
3
i;
8
12
7
u
23
4
ii .
6
105
* The popular vote was: Polk, 1,337,243—ﬁfteen States; Clay, 1,299,068—
eleven States; Birney, 62,300,
390 POLITICAL HISTORY.
“THE CABINET.
Secretary of State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .James Buchanan, Pa.
Secretary of Treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Robert J. Walker, Miss.
Secretary of War..~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .William L. Marcy, N. Y.
Secretary of Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .George Bancroft, Mass.
Attorney-General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .John Y. Mason, Va.
Postmaster-General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cave Johnson, Tenn.
PRESIDENT ’S MESSA GE—The Message to Congress
dwelt largely on the Texas situation, and favored war with
Mexico, especially if she infringed the treaty of 1839, as to in~
demnity to American citizens. It referred also to the Oregon
boundary, showed the public debt to be $17,000,000, condemned
all slavery agitation, favored a Sub-Treasury system, and recom-
mended a Tariff for revenue, with protection to home industry
as an incident. He applied the Jackson policy of rotation in
ofﬁce in the construction of his Cabinet, and in the Depart-
ments. '
T WEN T Y-NIN TH C ON GRESS—First Session.——Met Dec.
1, 1845. Both branches were Democratic. House organized by
electing John W. Davis, Dem., Indiana, Speaker, the vote being
120 to 70, though the full Democratic strength was 142, Whig
75, and American 6.* The relative strength in the Senate was
30 Democrat and 25 Whig. .
MEXICAN WAR—A popular convention in Texas had ac-
cepted the overture for annexation made by the United States.
Mexico protested and withdrew her minister to Washington.
General Taylor had been sent to the east bank of the Neuces,
into neutral territory, and on Dec. 31, 1845, Congress passed an
act extending authority over this territory lying between the
Neuces and Rio Grande. None of these acts provoked Mexico
to war. She was still in negotiable mood. Even before this,
Dec. 29, 1845, Texas had passed into the American Union. The
President ordered General Taylor (March, 1846) to march to the
Rio Grande and hold the neutral ground. He did so, and was
met by Arista, at Palo Alto, where a battle was fought. The
next day was fought Resaca de la Palma, which sent Arista back
* This was the ﬁrst appearance of the American party in National politics- Four
of the above six were from New York, and two from Pennsylvania.

‘q §< >> "1
\\\=’~\
$*§§f
4S;
.
lllllllllllllllIllllllllllllllIllllllllllllIllllllllllllllllllllllllIlllIllIlllllIlIIllllllllllIIIllHlllllllllllllllllllllilllIllllllllllllIllllllll
PRESIDENTS FROM 1841 TO 1353. 1
as
392 - POLITICAL HISTORY OF
into Mexican territory. Now American blood had been shed
on American soil, and Mexico was an offender. A easus 6ellz'
had been found. The President sent a Message to Congress
and asked for a Declaration .of War. The House responded
with a “ declaration” and $10,000,000 to back it up, the Whigs
favoring it under protest, and on the ground that an American
army~ must not be sacriﬁced, even if forced into peril or a
doubtful cause by the folly of a President.* '
WILMOT PRO VISO.——With the expectation that the war
would soon be over and that an important cession of territory
could be had, the President asked Congress for an appropriation
of $2,000,000 to be placed at his disposal to negotiate with. To
this appropriation, Mr. Wilmot, Pa., on ‘behalf of himself and
many Northern Democratic friends, moved what became historic
as “The Wilmot Proviso,” to wit, “ That‘no part of the territory
thus acquired should be open to the introduction of slavery.”
In strict law the proviso was unnecessary, for Mexico had abol-
ished-slavery, and any soil acquired from her would be free soil.
But Texas had reintroduced slavery before annexation to the
United States, and Wilmot felt that any other territory acquired
from Mexico would be overrun by slaveholders, who would soon
be clamoring for the protection of their institution. And this he
felt, too, in the face of the new Democratic doctrine “that no
power resided in Congress to legislate upon slavery in the Ter-
ritories.” This proviso brought heated discussion of ;the slave
question. Calhoun declared it to be an outrage, and menace.
It occupied a place in Congress for two sessions. ‘ State Legis-
latures acted on it. Parties took it up. From that time on it
* The Whigs denounced as a falsehood the declaration, “ Whereas, by the act of
the Republic of Mexico a state of war exists between that government and theLUnited
States.” The Liberty party opposed the war outright, regarding it as a huge, unjus-
- tiﬁable scheme to acquire slave territory. Calhoun opposed it also, as needless. He
felt that the same results could have been brought about with less excitement and
loss, and consequently with less detriment to the slave cause, by negotiation. It
was said that the President, who had been approached by many members of his own
party who were averse to the war, secured their support by the promise that it would
be over in a short time and that negotiations for peace had been agreed upon before
the war, which only awaited the return of Santa Anna from exile to be signed.
THE UNITED STATES. 393
was nothing new to hear of civil war and a dissolution of the
Union on account of it. How well Wilmot' guessed may be
inferred from the subsequent action of Calhoun (Feb. 19, 1847),
when he introduced into the Senate his celebrated Slavery Reso-
lutions,‘ declaring the Territories to be the common property of
the several States, and denying the right of‘ Congress to prohibit
slavery in a Territory or to pass any law which would have the
effect to deprive the citizen of any slave State from migrating
with his property (slaves) into such Territory. Though these
resolutions were not acted on, they answered the purpose in-
tended, to wit, to form a basis on which the slave could solidify
against the free States; on which a repeal of the Missouri Com-
promise line could be effected, and on which the subsequent
claim of non-interference with slavery in the Territories could
be founded.
THE OREGON BOUNDARY—The last Democratic plat-
form had pronounced in favor of an Oregon Territory up to the
line of 54° 40’, “or a ﬁght” with England. The Whigs, now
that Texas had been annexed, asked for a fulﬁlment of their
pledges.* The Democrats of the extreme Southern school op—
posed any action, but enough of them came to the support of the
President to warrant him in going on with negotiations. He
soon found that he could not keep his party pledges of 54° 40’,
for England refused to surrender above 49°.‘j' The opinion of
the Senate was asked, in accordance with an old Federal custom.
The Whigs accepted the responsibility, joined with enough Dem-
ocrats to save the administration from its party friends, and agreed
to sanction a treaty based on 49°. This became the Oregon
Treaty of June 15, 1846, by which war with England was averted.
It was followed by a bill to organize The Territory of Oregon,
without slavery. It was opposed by Southern Democrats, but
passed, and was not reached in the Senate.
TARIFF OF 1846._’[—-This disappointing act, passed in a
* For a full statement of this boundary trouble, see Oregon Treaty, p. 107.
1- Calhoun, when Secretary of State, had proposed 49° as a line upon which an
adjustment might be had. In this he was at odds with his party.
1 “ The bill passed the House and came to the Senate. Section was again arrayed
394 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
partisan spirit, against the promises of the Democrats not to
disturb the act of 1842, and in obedience to the doctrine of rigid
interpretation, which admitted of Tariff for revenue without the
incident of protection, reduced the rates provided in the former
act, from ﬁve to twenty per cent, and introduced the theory of
general an’ valorenz duties. The river and harbor improvement
bills, passed by both Houses, were vetoed, on the old rigid con-
struction ground that the government had no right to appro-
priate money for internal improvements. Congress adjourned,
Aug. 10, 1846. ..
T WEN T Y-NIN TH C ON GRESS—Second Session.—Met
Dec. 7, 1846. Mexican war measures occupied the time of this
session. Appropriations were made to sustain the war, and pur-
chase territory. Over the latter a spirited debate was had,which
resulted in its passage in the House with the Wilmot proviso
attached, and its passage in the Senate with the proviso removed.
The House then acquiesced in the Senate’s position. Ineffectual
attempts were made to formally extend the Missouri Compromise
line to the Paciﬁc, to organize Oregon Territory, without slavery,
and to appropriate money for Internal Improvement. All these
measures showed a sectional vote. The Improvement bills
passed, but received a pocket veto. Congress adjourned sine
die, March 3, 1847.
T HIR T IET H C ON GRESS—First Session—Met Dec. 6,
1847. The Whigs were in a majority in the House, and organ-
ized it by electing Robert C. Winthrop, Mass, Speaker. The
Democrats controlled the Senate. The President’s message ex-
tolled the working of the new Sub-Treasury system, spoke of
against section in the debate, and before the vote was taken it was found that the
Senate was a tie, and that the Vice-President would have the casting vote. George
M. Dallas, a Pennsylvanian, could defeat or pass the bill. He had the presidential
bee in his bonnet as bad as any man I ever knew, and, hoping that he could gain I
the favor of the South in aid of his aspirations, he gave the casting vote against the
section of his nativity, and the tariff bill of ’46 became a law. As I anticipated, it
put out the ﬁre in our furnaces, paralyzed many of our best industries, and, ﬁnally,
brought the credit of the Government to a discount. It also had a disastrous effect
upon the dominant party, and cost them the presidency in 1848, when General
Taylor was chosen.”--Hon. Simon Cameron, in Press.
THE UNITED STATES. 395
the continued success of the Mexican war, and stated that nego-
tiations for peace were then pending. These negotiations re-
sulted in the treaty of Guadaloupe-Hidalgo (Feb., 1848), which
made the Rio Grande the boundary and gave New Mexico and
Upper California to the United States for $15,000,000. This
immense acquisition of territory brought up the slavery question
again, and during the debates on the erection of Oregon Ter-
ritory without slavery, and the proposition to extend the Mis-
souri Compromise line to the Paciﬁc, Calhoun took occasion to
say, “ The great strife between the North and South is ended.
The North is determined to exclude the property of slaveholders,
and of course slaveholders themselves, from its territory. The
separation of the North and South is completed. The South is
bound to show that dearly as she prizes the Union, there are
questions she regards as of more importance than the Union.
It is not a question of territorial government, but a question
involving the continuance of the Union.” ‘ '
A compromise bill passed the Senate, organizing Oregon,
California and New Mexico, leaving slavery questions to be de-
cided by the Supreme Court. The House rejected this, and
sent the Senate the Oregon bill above mentioned. The Senate
accepted this, but amended it so as to extend the Missouri Com-
promise line to the Paciﬁc. The House regarded this as danger-
ous, since it would cut the country into two. distinct sections
with different, if not hostile, institutions, and would, moreover,
be equivalent to extending slavery to vast free areas, the Mex-
ican territory being all free under Mexican laws. It therefore
refused to extend the line. The Senate receded, and the Oregon
bill passed, without slavery. The vital question in all these de-
bates was the right of Congress to legislate on slavery in the
Territories, a question which was pushed in many ways' till it
culminated in the Kansas-Nebraska affair, the Dred Scott. de-
cision, and the desperate step of secession. The House took
decided ground in favor of Internal Improvement bya resolution
aimed at the rigid interpreters, claiming that the government had
a right to improve‘ rivers and harbors, under the clause to regu-
late commerce and provide for the common defense. Wisconsin
396' POLITICAL HISTORY.
entered the Union, May 29, 1848. Congress adjourned, Aug.
14, 1848.
ELECTION OF 1848.—The Democrats took the ﬁeld ﬁrst
in National Convention at Baltimore, May 22, 1848. The two-
third rule, which defeated Van Buren in the previous conven-
tion, was afﬁrmed, and has since prevailed in the conventions of
that party. Lewis Cass, Mich., was nominated for President,
and William O. Butler, Ky., for Vice-President. A great con-
tention arose over the power of the government to regulate
slavery in the Territories, and a test resolution to the effect that
the Congress had no power to interfere with slavery either in
the States or Territories was voted down. The platform afﬁrmed
that of 1844, and went on to (I) congratulate the country on the
results of the Mexican war; (2) commended the qualiﬁed veto;
(3) denounced a Tariff, except for revenue, and hailed “ the noble
impulse given to the cause of free trade by the repeal of the
tariff of 1842 and the creation of the more equal, honest _and
productive tariff of 1846;” (4) congratulated the Republic of
France; (5) endorsed Polk’s administration.
The Whig National Convention met at Philadelphia, _Iune 7,
1848, and nominated General Zachary Taylor, La.~,_ for President,
and Millard Fillmore, N. Y., for Vice-President. Taylor’s recent
military achievements in Mexico gave him the preference over
such other candidates as Clay, Webster and Scott. Test resolu-
tions favoring the Wilmot Proviso were voted down. The
I Whigs were no more ready for open commitment to anti-slavery
than the Democrats had shown themselves, in their convention,
to be ready for open commitment to a pro-slavery policy. The
convention did not adopt a platform, but resolutions passed at a
grand ratiﬁcation meeting, on the 9th of june, answered the
same purpose. They were mainly heroic, inviting the country
to a trial of well-known Whig principles under’ the laurel-
crowned Chieftain whose name was held in such high honor by
every American. _ '
The Free Soil Democrats met in convention at Buffalo, Aug. 9,
1848, and nominated for President Martin Van Buren, N.Y., and
for Vice-President Charles F rancis AdamS,_Mass. This faction

LEWIS CASS.

CHAS. FRANCIS ADAMS.
397
398 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
of Democrats, called “ Barnburners ” by their opponents, had sent
a delegation to the Baltimore convention, pledged to oppose the
further extension of slavery in the Territories. A counter dele-
gation, called “ Hunkers,” also sent a delegation pledged to non-
agitation of the slavery question. The convention sheared each
of its strength by dividing the vote between them. This being
equivalent to no vote at all, the Free Soilers withdrew and set
up candidates of their own. They promulgated a lengthy plat-
_ form which sought to secure free soil to a free people; (2)
withheld support from both the regular parties because one (the
Democratic) had stiﬂed free sentiment, and the other (Whig) had
been afraid to pronounce itself; (3) afﬁrming the ordinance of
1787, and the proviso of Jefferson that after 1800 no slavery
should exist in the Territories; (4) that slavery exists only by
State law and tha “Congress has no more power to make a
slave than to make a king;” (5) that the only way to prevent
slavery in territory now free is to prevent it in all territory; (6)
favoring Internal Improvement; (7) Watchword, “Free Soil,
Free Speech, Free Labor, Free Men.”
The campaign was not a bitter one, except as the Democrats
made it bitter among themselves. The effort to establish slavery
in the newly-acquired ‘Mexican territory, and to push the slavery
question ‘so as to commit the government either to non-inter-
ference with it or to direct sanction of it in all territory, estranged
many Democrats. The Southern Democrats themselves were
not a unit, for many of ‘them preferred Taylor, from a slave
State and without a platform, to Cass, from a free State and with
a platform which did not directly favor or mention slavery. The
old Liberty party‘ blended with the‘Free Soil party. As in the
former campaign, New York was the political turning-point.
And as the Liberty party, by dividing the Whigs, had given it to
Polk in 1844, so now the Free'Soilers, by weakening the Demo-
crats, gave it to the 'Whigs. The election in November was a
Whig victory.
THIRTIETH CONGRESS—Second Session—Met Dec. 4,
1848. Parties were very ﬁdgety during this session. In view of
the prominence given to slavery agitation, the old party lines
THE UNITED STATES. ‘399
began to chafe considerably. Thus the Northerh Democrats,
almost in a body, voted in the House to organize the Territories
of California and New Mexico withou‘t slavery, or, as it was
then termed, with the Wilmot Proviso. This the Senate amended
by providing for their organization with slavery. The Senate at-
tempted to‘ force its position by making. the bill a part of the
appropriation bill, thus presenting to the House the alternative
of a moneyless government or two slave Territories. The re-
sponse was an appropriation bill and the old Mexican free laws
till July 4, 1850. The Senate withdrew its “rider,” and the
appropriation bill passed. A violent debate sprung up in the
House over a resolution condemning the exhibition and sale of
slaves in the city of Washington. The electoral count in Feb-
ruary showed for Taylor and Fillmore 163 votes, and for Cass
and Butler. 127 votes. Congress adjourned sine die, March 3,
1849. The candidates-elect were sworn into ofﬁce March 5,
1849, the 4th being Sunday.
XVI.
TAYLOR’S AND FI-LLMORE’S ADMINISTRATIONS.
March 5, 1849—March 3, 185 3.
ZACHARY TAYLOR, LA., President. MILLARD FILLMORE, N. Y.,
‘ Vice-President.
Congresses. Sessions.
I, December 3, 1849—September 30, 1850.
THIRTY-FIRST CONGRESS. { 2’ December 2’ I85(,_Mar¢h 3, 1351_
1, December I, 1851—August 31, 1852.
THIRTY-SECOND CONGRESS. 2, December 6, 1352_March 3, 1353,
ELECTORAL VOTE.*

Whig. Democrat.
Basis of (Zachary Tay- Millard Fill‘- Tewis Cass, W.O.ButI
States. 70,680. Vote. ~lor, La. more, N. Y. Mich. ler, Ky.
Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 . . . . 9 9
Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . I 3 - - - - 3 3
‘Connecticut. 4 6 6 6 .. ..
' Delaware........'..-..-. 1 3 3 3 "
* The popular vote was: Taylor, 1,360,101—15 States; Cass, 1,220,544--I 5
States; Van Buren, 291,263. ' '
400 POLITICAL HISTORY or
Electoral Vote—Continued.

Whig. ' Democrat.
Basis of IZTzchary Tay- Millard Fill: LEWIS Cass, W.O.But-
States. 70,680. Vote. lor, La. more, N. Y. Mich. ler, Ky.
Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 3 3 3 ' . . . .
Georgia. . .- . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10 10 ~ 10 . . . .
Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 . . 9 9
Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 12 ' . . 12 12
Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 . . . . 4 4
Kentucky............. IO ‘ 12 12 _ 12 .. ..
Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 6 6 . . . -
Maine..- . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 9 . ‘.. 9 9
Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8 8 8 . . ' . - .
Massachusetts . . . . . . . . 10 12 12 12 . . . .
Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 . . . 5 5
Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . .. i 6 . . 6 6
Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 . . 7 7
New Hampshire . . . . .. 4 6 . . . 6 6
New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 7 7 . . .
New York . . . . . . . . . . . 34 36 36 36 . . ‘ .
North Carolina........ 9 11 11 11 .. .
Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21 . 23 .. . . 23 23
Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . 24 26 26 26 . . . .
Rhode Island . . . . . . . . 2 4 4 4 . . . .
South Carolina.. . . . . .. 7 9 . . . . 9 9
Tennessee . . . . . . . . . .. 11 13 I3 13 . . ..
Texas................ 2 4 .. .. 4 4
Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 6 6 . .
Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 I7 . . 7 17
Wisconsin............ 2 4 .. .. 4 4
Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . .230 290 163 163 127 127
THE CABINET
Secretary of State . . . . . . . . . . . .John M. Clayton, Del.'
Secretary of Treasury . . . . . . . . .William M. Meredith, Pa.
Secretary of War . . . . . . . . . . . .Geo. W. Crawford, Ga.
Secretary of Navy . . . . . . . . . . . .William B. Preston, Va.
Secretary of Interior . . . . . . . . . .Thomas H. Ewing, Ohio.*
Attorney-General . . . . . . . . . . . . .Reverdy johnson, Md.
Postmaster-General . . . . . . . . . . .Jacob Collamer, Vt.
T HIRT Y-FIRS T C ON GRESS—First Session—Met Dec.
3, 1849. The Senate was Democratic, 35 to 25. In the House
were I 10 Democrats, 105 Whigs and 9 Free Soilers. The latter
held a balance of power, and stubbornly exercised it through
sixty-two ineffectual ballots for Speaker. Only by agreeing that
the highest number of votes for any one candidate should elect,
was a Speaker chosen in the person of Howell Cobb, Ga., a
Democrat of the extreme Southern school, and a slavery exten-
*,This “ HomeDepartment,” since called “ the Interior Department,” was created
by the Thirtieth Congress. . .l. I r -
THE vUNITED STATES. 401.
sionist. The annual message deprecated the sectional feeling
regarding slavery, spoke of the folly of disunion as a remedy,
and took the Jackson stand, that at all hazards the Union must
be maintained.
CALHOUN ’5 NEW DOC T RINE.—The postponed ques-
tion of the extension of the Missouri Compromise line to the
Paciﬁc came up early. Calhoun, always aggressive and masterly,
proposed to cover the whole question by extending the Constitu-
tion of the United States to all the newly-acquired Mexican
Territory.* Webster met this situation by showing that the
Constitution was designed only for States, and that it could not
operate even in the States without an act of Congress to enforce
it. Further, that the sanction which that instrument gave to
slavery where it existed would not create slavery where it did
not exist, for slavery was a creation of the several States and not
of the general government. While Calhoun’s proposition was
under debate the President’s views were presented. They favored
the admission of California directly,]” as she was ready, and the
erection of New Mexico and Utah into Territories, unmixed with
slavery, leaving the matter to be decided by their people when
they asked for admission as States.
COMPROMISE OF 1850.-—Clay now came forward with a
set of compromise measures, which in one shape or another
were adopted during the session, and in the aggregate became
known as the Compromise of 1850. They, in general, provided
for the admission of California; for the erection of New Mexico
and Utah Territories, unmixed with slavery, the same to be de-
cided by the people when they came to form States; the adj ust-
ment of the Texas boundary and thepayment of a money in-
demnity to that State; a more vigorous fugitive slave law; the
abolition of the slave trade, but no interference with it in the
District of Columbia. The Whigs and Free .Soilers regarded
Clay's Compromise as a weak and unnecessary concession of
- * Calhoun’s idea was that inasmuch as the Constitution sanctioned slavery, its ex-
tension over any territory would establish slavery there.
j'California had formed a State Constitution without slavery, June 3, 1849, and
had made formal application for admission as a State, Feb. 13, I850.
26
402 POLITICAL HISTORY‘ 0F
free soil principles, and the extreme pro-slavery Democrats re-
garded it as a surrender of the late doctrine that Congress had
no right to prohibit a slaveholder from going where he pleased
in the Territories and taking his property with him. The meas-
ures therefore satisﬁed but few of the leaders, yet they served the
purpose of temporarily postponing the agitation and perhaps
averting, for the time, secession and civil war, threats of which,
on the part of the South, were rife. California became a State,
without slavery, Sept. 9, 1850* The Fugitive Slave Law, the
result of the Compromise, was a severe measure, much more so
than the old one. It greatly encouraged the pursuit of fugitives,
made it compulsory on all citizens to aid in their arrest, and
compelled U. S. Commissioners to remand them without trial.
Its execution led to indignant protest on the part of Northern
citizens and to the protection of free negroes, charged with being
slaves, by special State enactments. That part of the Compromise
prohibiting interference with slavery in the District of Columbia
was not accepted, and slavery was abolished therein by act of
Sept. 15, 1850. The Congress adjourned, Sept. 30, 1850.
TA YLOR’S DEA T II—After an illness of four days, due to
exposure in the sun on Independence day, President Taylor died,
July 9, I850. Vice—President Fillmore was duly inaugurated,
July 10, 1850. His Cabinet was conﬁrmed by the Senate, as
follows:
Secretary of State, Daniel Webster, Mass; Secretary of
Treasury, Thomas Corwin, Ohio; Secretary of War, Winﬁeld
Scott, ad interim, and Charles M. Conrad, La., permanently;
Secretary of Navy, William A. Graham, N. C.; Secretary of In‘
* The political importance of California to the South was ‘great. Long before,
the free States preponderated in the House. But the Senate thus far was equally
divided between North and South. California turned the scale. Her admission
as a free State gave 32 free State Senators to 30 slave State Senators, and there was
no other State ready for admission south of 36° 30', nor likely- to be for a long time.
Besides California was the ﬁrst fruit of the Mexican conquest, and the policy which
controlled her admission was likely to hold as to the remainder of the Mexican Ter-
ritory. It was a disappointing situation for the pro-slavery leaders, and the begin-
ning of that policy which sought to break down all old barriers and compromises,
invited the Kansas difﬁculty, and formed a prelude to a separate Confederacy.
THE UNITED STATES. 403
terior, A. H. H. Stuart, Va.; Attorney-General, John J. Critten-
den, Ky.; Postmaster-General, Nathan K. Hall, N. Y.
POLITICAL S] T UA T I ON.-——While this sad transition was
a peaceful one, and boded no disaster to the dominant party as
did that from Harrison to Tyler, there were many things going
on, more or less portentous. In the session of Congress just
adjourned (First session Thirty-ﬁrst Congress) the slavery meas-
ures of the extreme Southern Democrats had been even more
opposed by Northern Democrats than by the Whigs. This was
not only following up their charge that the pro-slavery element
of the party had betrayed them in the previous Presidential cam-
paign, but it showed a disposition to break away from the ultra
doctrine of slavery extension to which the slaveholding mem-
bers sought to commit the entire party.
The Whigs had not, as was expected, committed themselves
in their National Convention to the Wilmot proviso. They there-
fore did not attract the members of the Liberty party, nor those
of its successor, the Free Soil Democrats. On the contrary they
lost many of their leaders to the pro—slavery Democrats. Thus
while the Democratic party was being torn to pieces by losses of
its Free Soil element, it was being recuperated by accessions of
the prosslavery Whig element. The Whigs losing, gained noth-
ing, and their decay as a positive political force dates from the
death of Taylor.
We have seen how rapidly the pro—slavery whirlpool was
made to revolve under the bold yet skillful management of
Calhoun, and how at every revolution the country had to face
some new situation, till, failing, to force the _line of 36° 30'
through to the Paciﬁc, thus making a free and slave section, it
took the form of broad denial of the right of the government to
interfere with slavery in any place, or at all. The accession of
pro-slavery Whigs to the Democrats changed the aspect of affairs
somewhat. It stopped, for the time being, the threats of seces-
sion and war, and introduced a new, more conservative and
popular idea, over which to wrangle. It will be remembered
the Democrats, in their last National Convention at Baltimore,
had voted down a resolution to the effect that the government
404 POLITICAL HISTORY.
had no authority over slavery in the Territories, the corollary
being, that the people of each Territory should be let alone to
‘treat the matter as they pleased. The pro-slavery Whigs now
took hold of this doctrine and forced it on the attention of the
Democrats and the country. It was the doctrine which after-
wards became known as Popular, or Squatter, Sovereignty,
which ﬁgured so prominently in the Kansas affair, and which
served to draw Douglas, Geary, Reeder and other leaders outside -
of the then existing Democratic lines. It was the doctrine also
which the hardy miners of California applied in their own State,
to the surprise, if not disgust, of those who originated it. The
pro-slavery sentiment which had thus proved a wedge to force
asunder the Whig party, and had nothing more to fear from it as
an organization, had to address itself to a more thorough con-
trol of the Democratic party. But in the meantime there would
be an advance of opposition sentiment, and _a ﬁnal gathering up .
of political fragments into something more formidable, as a
political force, than had yet been dreamed of.
T HIR T Y-FIRS T C ON GRESS—Second Session. Met Dec.
2, 1850. The session was quiet and gloomy. The administra-
tion had nothing new to urge, and parties agreed to hold their
own in comparative peace. Adjourned sine die, March 3,
1851.
T HIRT Y-SEC OND C ON GRESS—First Session—Met Dec.
1, 1851. The Congressional elections had turned on the Com-
promise measures of 1850, and the people endorsed them, as a
happy quietus to slavery agitation, by returning a majority of
Democrats of rather conservative turn. Both branches were,
therefore, Democratic, the Senate by 8 and the House by 50.
The House organized by electing Linn Boyd, Ky., Democrat,
Speaker. The application of‘ the Platte country (afterwards
Nebraska and Kansas) for a Territorial government threatened
for a time to open .the slavery question, but the matter was
dropped before debate took acrimonious turn. There was but
little disposition shown on the part of the majority to antagonize
the administration, and in general the session work was rou-

. tine.

I
GENERAL \VINFIELD SCOTT.

P. HALE.
JO 11 N
405
406 ' POLITICAL HISTORY OF
ELECTION OF 1852.—4The Democrats led the ﬁeld in
National Convention at Baltimore, june 1, 1852. This was a
supreme effort of the Southern or pro-slavery Democrats to
commit the party to their doctrine of slavery extension, and to a
rigid interpretation of the powers of the general government,
the latter being then and afterwards best known as “State
Rights” doctrine. The nominee for President was Franklin
Pierce, N. H.; and for Vice-President, \Nilliam R. King, Ala.
The platform reafﬁrmed the greater part of that of 1848, and
added: (1) No more revenue than is necessary to defray the
expenses of the government. (2) No National Bank. (3) Sep-
aration of government moneys from banking. The country
is an asylum for the oppressed: therefore, no abridgment of
citizenship and the right to own soil. (5) Congress has no right
to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the
States. Endorsement of the Compromise measures of 1850,
and resistance to all attempts to renew the slavery agitation.
(7) Adhesion to the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798.
(8) The war with Mexico was necessary and its results approved.
(9) No monopoly for the few at the expense of the many, and the
Union as it is and should be.
The Whigs met in National Convention at Baltimore, June
16, 1852, and nominated for President, Winﬁeld Scott, Va. ; for
Vice-President, William A. Graham, N. C. The platform
claimed: (1) A sufﬁcient power in the government to sustain it
and make'it operative. (2) Revenue from tariff, with “suitable
encouragement to American industry.” (3) Internal Improve-
ment. (4) Endorsed the Compromise measures of 1850, “the
Fugitive Slave Law included.” The platform was fair to the
party—though extremely conservative—except the endorsement
of the Compromise measures of 1850, “including the Fugitive
Slave Law,” which endorsement, as the sequel proved, was a part
of the plan of the extreme pro-slavery leadersto commit both
"political parties to their policy of slavery extension, and which
reacted on the Whig party with twice the effect it did on the
Democratic party, so‘ soon as the nature of those Compromise
measures became fully known.
THE UNITED STATES. 407
The Free Soil Democrats held their National Convention at
Pittsburg, Pa., August 11, 1852, and nominated for President,
John P. Hale, N. H.; for Vice-President, George W. ulian, Ind.
Its platform announced : That government was established to
secure‘the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. (2) That the Constitution expressly denies to the
general government all power to ‘deprive any person of life,
liberty or property without due process of law; that, therefore, it
has no more power to make a slave than a king, or to establish
slavery than establish a monarchy. (3) No more slave States,
no slave Territory, no national slavery, no national legislation for
the extradition of slaves. (4) The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850
denounced as repugnant to the Constitution, common law, Chris-
tianity, and of no binding force. (5) The Compromise measures
of 18 50 disapproved. (6) Both political parties repudiated.
The election in November resulted in a Democratic victory,
the Whigs carrying only Massachusetts, Vermont, Kentucky
and Tennessee, though the result in most of the others was very
close.
THIRTY-SECOND CONGRESS—Second Session—Met
Dec. 6, I8 52. The bill for the organization of the Territory of
the Platte, rejected at the last session, came up in the shape of a
bill to organize the Territory of Nebraska, which included 1
Kansas. It was rejected by the Senate, at the instance of
Southern members, the time not being ripe for open assumption
of the position to which the Compromise measures of 1850
logically led. The electoral count, in February, showed 254
votes for Pierce and King, and 42 for Scott and Graham. Con-
gress adjourned sine die, March 3, 1853. President Pierce was
sworn into ofﬁce, March 4, 185 3, and Vice-President King
some time afterwards, he being sick on March 4.
408 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
XVII.
PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION.
March 4, 1853—March 3, 1857.
FRANKLIN PIERCE, N. H., President. WILLIAM R. KING, ALA.,
V ice-President.
, Congresses. ~ ' _ Sessions.
1, December 5, 1853-August 7, 1854.
2, December 4, 1854—March 3, 1855.
1, December 5, 1855-August 18, 1856.
THIRTY-FOURTH CoNcREss. { 2, August 21, 1856—August 30, 1856, extra session.
3, December I, 1856—March 3, 1857.
THIRTY-THIRD CoNcREss.
ELECTORAL VO T E.*

Democrats. Whigs.
' T‘Tgklin William‘ R: Tvinﬁeid William 9:
Basis of Pierce, King, Scott, Graham,
States. 93,423 Votes. N. H. Ala. Va. N. C.
Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 9 9 . . .
Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 4 4 . . .
California . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 4 4 . . .
Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 6 6 . _. .
Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 3 2 . . .
Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 3 3 . . .
Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10 10 - Io . . .
IllinoisQ . . . . . . . . . . . .2 9 11 11 II .. .
Indiana...'............11 13 I3 13 ..
Iowa................. 2 4 4 4 . ..
Kentucky............. 10 12 .. .. 12 12
Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 6 6 . . .
Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8 8 8 . . .
Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ' 8 8 8 . . . .
Massachusetts . . . . . . . . II 13 . . . . I 3 13
Michigan.............. 4 6 '6 6 .. .
Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 7 7 . . .
Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 9 9 . . .
New Hampshire. . . . 3 5 5 5 . . .
New jersey . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 7 7 . . . .
New York . . . . . . . . . . .. 33 35 35 35 on ..
North Carolina.. . . . . . . 8 10 10 10 . . . .
Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 23 23 _ 23 . . . .
Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . 25 27 27 27 . . . .
Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . 2 4 4 4 . . . .
South Carolina.. . . . . .. 6 8 8 8 . . . .
Tennessee............ 10 12 .. .. 12 12
Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 4 4 . . . .
Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 . . . . 5 5
Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . .. I3 15 15. 15 .. _ .
Wisconsin . . . . . . . .. '. . . 3 5 5 5 . . __._:
Total . . . . . . . . . . 234 296 254 254 42 42
* The popular vote was, Pierce, 1,601 ,474—27 States; Scott, 1,386, 578-4 States;
Hale, 156,149. ‘ '
THE UNITED STATES. 409
" THE CABINET
Secretary of State . . . . . . . .William L. Marcy, N. Y.
Secretary of Treasury. . . ..James Guthrie, Ky.
Secretary of War . . . . . . . .Jefferson Davis, Miss.
Secretary of Navy . . . . . . . .James C. Dobbin, N. C.
Secretary of Interior. . . ...Robert McLelland, Mich.
Attorney-General . . . . . . . .Caleb Cushing, Mass.
Postmaster-GeneraL. . . . . . James Campbell, Pa.
POLITICAL SI T UA T I ON.—The administration opened
with surface indications of peace. The country had ratiﬁed the
Compromise measures of 1850, on the theory that they afforded
an escape from slavery agitation, but without knowing that they
were fuller of the germs of agitation than any measures yet
propounded. Both parties had been'committed to them in their
platforms, at the instance of their pro-slavery members ;- they
therefore stood committed to the logical results of those
measures, or else to demoralizing retreat. The discovery of
what they contained appalled the Whigs. They never recovered
from the shock, lost their organization, never ran another Presi-
dential Candidate. They literally died of too much Compro-
mise, or, as was piquantly said at the time, “of an attempt to
swallow the Fugitive Slave law.” President Pierce in his ﬁrst
message thoroughly committed the administration to the Com-
promise measures. The pro-slavery Democrats were therefore
in a very enviable situation. They could force their construction
of the situation with the hands of the Whig party tied, and with
the assurance that the Democratic organization was ﬁrmly with
them.
THIRTY- THIRD CONGRESS—First Sessione—MetiDec. 5,
1853. The Democrats had a majority in the House, over all
opposition, of 74, and in the Senate of 14. The House organized
by re-electing Linn Boyd, Ky., ‘Speaker. Discussion of the’
Kansas-Nebraska bill occupied the greater part of the session.
It opened the slavery agitation in a new form, and it was not to
cease till quieted by arms. The Nebraska bill of the previous
sessions took the form of a bill to create two Territories out of
the Platte country, the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska.
Both lay north of 36° 30', the Missouri Compromise line of 1820;
and therefore both were free Territories according to the provi-v
410 POLITICAL HISTORY.
sions of that Compromise. But the new pro-slavery doctrine-—
new since the Compromise measures of 1850—was, that these
measures of 1850 invalidated those of 1820, and committed the
government to non-interference with slavery in the Territories.
Therefore the slavery question was an open one as to all terri-
tory, with no right on the part of Congress to legislate for or
against it.
The Senate Bill (Kansas and Nebraska), under the amendment
of Mr’. Douglas, therefore provided, “that so much of the
Compromise bill of 1820 preventing slavery north of 36° 30',
as was inconsistent with the Compromise of 1850 establishing
non-intervention by Congress with slavery in either States or
Territories, was inoperative and void, it being the true intent and
meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or
State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof
perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in
their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United
States.”
This amendment is noteworthy. It admitted what the pro-
slavery Democrats and Whigs already knew, that the Compro-
mise measures of 1850, logically construed, repealed the Com-
promise of 1820. It hampered them, however, for with the
repeal of the Compromise of 1820 and their claim to go where
they pleased with slave property, they had all the public terri-
tory open to slavery. The Douglas idea was that introduced
into the Democratic party by pro-slavery Whigs, to wit, the idea
of squatter or popular sovereignty, a leaving of slavery to the
Voice of the people of the Territory or proposed State.
While the bill as thus amended was not what the South wanted,
it secured the united support of ‘pro-slavery Democrats and
Whigs, but it divided the Northern Democrats into two even
bodies (44 each), one of which supported it, and the other. op-
posed it. The Northern Whigs opposed it and the Free Soil
Democracy. The Democratic breach soon closed, but the Whig
breach widened, and the Northern wing left their name to be
perpetuated for a little while by their Southern brethren, they in
the meantime assuming the title of anti-Nebraska men, soon to
be merged into Republican.

STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.

WILLIAM L. MARCY.
411
412 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
The passage of the bill, May 25, 1854, opened the eyes of
the entire country to what was concealed in the apparently innof
cent Compromise measures of 1850, and transferred the‘scene' '-
of combat from Congress to the plains of the West, where it
was carried on amid confusion and bloodshed for years. The
squatter sovereignty idea placed the free and slave States on
their merits as colonizers. The section that could send the
greatest number of bona ﬁa'e settlers into the new ﬁelds was
bound to win in the end. Could the South, which had always
out-manoeuvred the North in- slave diplomacy, cope with that
more populous section in this practical adjudication of the deli-
cate question P Congress adjourned, August 7, 18 54.
T HIR T Y- THIRD C ON GRESS—Second Session—Met Dec-
4, 1854. The session resulted in no measure of political sig-
niﬁcance. Adjourned sine die, March 3, 18 55.
A NEW POLITICAL FORCE—The Native American idea
is almost as old as the country. In 1790 naturalization could
be had after two years’ residenee; In 1795 it required ﬁve years’
residence. A great majority of foreigners, either Frenchmen
' direct or Irish and Scotch driven from home for sympathy with
France, naturally afﬁliated with the Republican, party, which was
always ready for a war with England. This fact induced the
Federal measure of 1798, extending the period for naturalization
to fourteen years. In 1802 the Republicans, in order to rein-
force their party, ﬁxed the time at ﬁve years, where it has since
stood. They were not disappointed, for this legal consultation
of a tendency, backed by the encouragement it ever received
in their declaration of principles, has always secured to them a
majority of the foreign vote, especially in the cities. To coun-
teract, or correct, this, an organized movement was begun in New
York as early as 1835. In 1844 the Native American-s carried
that-city, electing their Mayor by a good majority. This success
caused the movement to spread to adjoining States. It em-
braced members of all parties, and became prominent in local
municipal contests. Its presence in Philadelphia resulted in the
murderous riots of 1844. In 1852 it reappeared as a secret or-
ganization, ofﬁcially as the American party, but popularly as the
THE UNITED STATES. 413
“ Know-Nothing ” party, from the reticenceof its members as to
their principles. Of it Hon. A. H. H. Stuart, Va., said: “The
vital principle of the American party is Amerz'eanz'sm—develop-
ing itself in a deep-rooted attachment to our own country—its
Constitution, its union, its laws—to American men, American
measures, American interests.” Its cardinal principle was:
“Americans must rule America; ” its countersign was the order
of Washington at a critical time during the Revolution, “Put
none but Americans on guard to-night.” By holding a balance
of power in many cities and States, its vote decided several im-
portant elections, and as the extent of its inﬂuence could not be -
foreknown, political results were at times genuine surprises to
party leaders. It received large accessions from the Whigs, es-
pecially of the South, after the passage of the Kansas and Ne-
braska bill, who could not go with their Northern brethren into
the anti-Nebraska movement, nor yet with the Democrats into a
pronounced pro-slavery movement. In 1855 it carried as many
as nine State elections. It was therefore a power which had
been startlingly felt in the Congressional elections of that year,
andwas to be still further felt in the session about to be held’. -
T HIR T Y-FO UR T H C ON GRESS—F irst Session—Met Dec.
3, 1855. In the Senate the Democrats had a majority of nine.
In. the House the magniﬁcent Democratic majority of the pre-
vious Congress had been wiped out and turned into one of anti-
Nebraska men, of whom there were .1 17, as against 79 straight
Democrats and 37 pro-slavery Whigs. Owing to the fact that
many of the majority were Know-Nothings, a protracted contest
arose over the speakership. A choice was not made till Febru-
ary, 1856, when a resort was had to the method adopted by the
Thirty-ﬁrst Congress, that of a choice by the highest number of
votes. N. P. Banks, Mass., was then chosen on the 131st bal-
lot. He was a pronounced anti-Nebraska man, and therefore the
majority were represented in the Speaker. This was the stormy
beginning of one of the stormiest sessions ever held.
KANSAS T ROUBLE—The Kansas question came up im-
mediately and occupied the entire session. As we have seen
the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854), with the

NATHANIEL P. BANKS.
414
THE UNITED STATES. 415
Squatter Sovereignty Amendment, threw open these Territories
to competitive settlement by North and South, or by anti-slavery
and pro-slavery men. The South had the advantage of prox-
imity—Missouri being next to Kansas. The Missourians
swarmed over the border and elected a congressional delegate,
Nov. 29, 18 54, who was accepted by the Congress. They
did the same in 1855, and elected a Legislature, which met at
Pawnee in July of that year, and enacted a State Constitution,
strongly pro-slavery'in its terms.
The anti-slavery settlers were all this time pouring in through
Iowa and Nebraska—they had been prohibited from passing
through the State of Missouri—against the armed protest of the
pro-slavery occupants—Border Rufﬁans as they were called—-
and the condition of the Territory was one of war, with but little
doubt as to the result, for the anti-slavery settlers came to make
investment and to stay, while the pro-slavery occupants clung
less tenaciously to the soil, and wasted time and energy in the
excitement which the new ﬁeld furnished. The anti-slavery or
free State settlers met in convention at Topeka, Septf5, 1855,
and enacted a free State constitution. They denounced the ex-
isting Legislature as not of Kansas, but the work of Missourians
who had crossed the border to create it, elected a delegate to
Congress, who was rejected, and on Jan. I 5, 18 56, elected State
ofﬁcers, and asked to be admitted as a State. Their work was
rejected by Congress.
The local. conﬂict grew louder and more sanguinary. The
President interfered, Jan. 24, 1856, by a message endorsing the
pro-slavery Legislature, and, Feb. 11, 1856, by a proclamation
denouncing the attempt to form a 1 free State government as an
act of rebellion. He ordered the governor of the Territory
(Shannon) to enforce the laws of the pro-slavery Legislature
with the United States troops. This only added to the excite-
ment. The free State Legislature, which met at Topeka, July 4,
18 56, was broken up by United States troops, acting under the
President’s order. By this time a congressional committee, sent
to the scene, reported that no free, fair election had ever been
held in the Territory. On the strength of this, and in order to.
41 6 , POLITICAL HISTORY.
balk the effort to force a government on the people without a
fair expression of their sentiments as to whether it should be
slave or free, the House refused to appropriate money for the
army if it were to be used to sustain the pro-slavery Legislature
of the Territory.
It would be impossible to conceive of the excitement in both
Houses over the question, and throughout the country. In the
Senate Charles Sumner was knocked down and beaten (May 22,
1856), by Representative Brooks, South Carolina, for a speech
which criticised his relative, Senator Butler, South Carolina.
Congress adjourned Aug. 18, 1856.
THIRTY-FOURTH CONGRESS—Extra Session.——Called
Aug. 21, 1856. This session was called to meet the emergency
occasioned by the adjournment of Aug. 18, without an appro-
priation for the army. The House still insisted on its proviso
that the army should not be used to force a pro-slavery govern-
ment on the people of Kansas; but a change of governors hav-
ing been announced—i—Shannon was superseded by Geary*—it
receded, and the army appropriation bill was passed. The
extra session adjourned Aug. 30, 18 56.
ELECTION OF 18 56.-—The Know-Nothing organization,
which had been so successful in the State and local elections of
1855, would now try its hand in national affairs as The American
Party. It took the ﬁeld ﬁrst, and met in national convention, at
Philadelphia, Feb. 22, 1856. There were 227 delegates present.
All the States were represented except Maine, Vermont, Georgia,
and South Carolina. Many of the delegates (probably a fourth)
were not so much “Americans” as anti-slavery men. Millard
Fillmore, New York, was nominated for President, and Andrew
I. Donelson, Tennessee, for Vice-President. The platform an-
nounced: (I) Perpetuation of the Union. (2) Preference of
native-born citizens for ofﬁce. (3) No ofﬁce for any one who
‘recognizes obligation to any foreign prince, potentate, or power.
(4) Non-interference by Congress with ‘questions belonging to
individual States, nor by States with each other. ( 5) The right
* Geary arrived Sept. 9, 1856, and succeeded in bringing about a suspension of
local hostilities without directly using the United States forces.

\.
\.....\ .\\
CHARLES SUMNER.

PRESTON S. BROOKS.
417
27
41 8 POLITICAL HISTORY.
of native-born and naturalized citizens of any Territory to frame
their own constitution and laws, and regulate their social affairs
in their own way. (6) A residence of twenty-one years as ne-
cessary to naturalization. On account of the failure of the
convention to recognize the right of Congress to re-establish
the Missouri Compromise line, the anti-slavery delegates
withdrew, and threw their strength to the coming Republican
party. ‘
The Democratic Convention met at Cincinnati, June 2, 1856,
and nominated James Buchanan, Pennsylvania, for President, and
John C. Breckinridge, Kentucky, for Vice-President. The plat—
form endorsed preceding ones, and added, (I). Opposition to
Americanism. (2) No more revenue than is necessary to defray
expenses. (3) No general system of Internal Improvement. (4)
Strict construction of Federal powers. (5) No National Bank.
(6) No interference with Slavery in the Territories, the people
to have the right to settle that question for themselves (this was
an endorsement of the Squatter Sovereignty idea). (7) Approval
of the Kansas-Nebraska bill.-
REPUBLICAN PARTY. *—This new candidate for national
favor‘ received a name, said to have been suggested by Governor
Seward, N. Y., in the latter part of 1855 or early part of 1856.
It was a substitute for the title of “Anti-Nebraska Men,” then
applied to those who had opposed the Kansas-Nebraska act, and
who were, in general, opposed to slavery and its extension. It
raised a standard around which could rally the old Liberty
party, the Free Soil Democracy, the Anti-Slavery Whigs, and
all who were ﬁnding it irksom . to follow the Democratic party as
it grew more rigid in its interpretation of the Constitution, in-
clined more and more to make a political dogma of State Rights,
and refused to separate its own existence from that of slavery in
the State, and slavery extension in the Territory.
The Republican party held its ﬁrst National Convention at
Philadelphia, June17, 1856, and nominated John ‘C. Fremont,
Cal., for President, and William M. Dayton, N. 1., for Vice-
*Called the “Black Republican” party by its opponents, on account of its
sympathy for ‘the colored races

JoHN c. FREMONT.

ROBERT J. WALKER.
419
420 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
President. Its platform showed that its members were liberal
interpreters of the Constitution. It announced : (I) That the Con-
stitution, the rights of the States, and the Union of the States,
shall be preserved. (2) “ No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process of law,” and denial of
the authority of Congress, or of a Territorial Legislature, or of
any association of individuals, to give legal existence to slavery
In any Territory of the United States, under the present Con-
stitution. (3) Congress, in the exercise of its Constitutional
power over Territories, ought to prohibit “those twin relics of
barbarism, polygamy and slavery.” (4) Denounced the Kansas
policy of the administration, and all effort to set up a pro-slavery
government there, in deﬁance of the will of the people. (5) The
immediate admission of Kansas with her Free State Constitution.
(6) Government aid for a Paciﬁc Railroad. (7) A system of In-
ternal Improvement.
The Whigs, or what was left of them, met at Baltimore, Sept.
I 7, 1856. They, in common with the Know-Nothings, de-
nounced the Democratic and Republican parties as sectional,
and then, without further endorsing or discussing the Know-
Nothing principles, agreed to support Fillmore and Donelson,
because they regarded the country as already, in a state of civil
war, and believed that their election would be the best means of
restoring peace. The Whig name now disappears from the party
lists. .
After an exciting campaign, involving a wide discussion of
principles, the election in November showed 1 State (Maryland)
for Fillmore; 11 free States for Fremont; 14 slave States and
the rest of the free (19 in all) States for Buchanan. ,
T HIR T Y-FOURT H C ON GRESS—Second Session—Met-
Dec. 1, I8 56. The result of the Presidential election had served
to tighten party lines. The Anti-Nebraska Men (now Republi-
' cans) were numerically the strongest body (108) in the House,
but could not command a majority as against the Democrats
(83) and Americans (43) or Know-Nothings. The Senate stood
40 Democrats; 15 Republicans; 5 Americans.
THE KANSAS QUEST ION.——The dispersion of the Free
THE UNITED STATES. 421
State Legislature at Topeka, Jan. 6, 185 7, by Federal‘ troops,
and the arrest of its ofﬁcers and many members, again brought
the question prominently before Congress. The House passed .
a bill declaring the acts of the Pro-Slavery Legislature op-
pressive and void, which the Senate tabled. A change of
governors from Geary, who had lost caste with the Pro-Slavery
Legislature, to Robert J. Walker, Miss., gave respite from dis- I
cussion for thetime being.
TARIFF OF 1857.—While this session showed a spirit of
generosity in encouraging railroad enterprises in the West by
grants of public lands, it struck the country a cruel blow on the
very last day of the session (March 3) by enacting the tariff of
1857. This measure reduced duties all along the line of imports,
and on leading articles almost to such rates as were wont to
prevail before the war of 1812, and had prevailed at no time
since except at the end of the sliding scale (1841) provided by
the act of 1833f‘<
The electoral count in February showed 174 votes for Bu-
chanan and Breckinridge ; 114 for Fremont and Dayton; 8 for
Fillmore and Donelson. Congress adjourned sine die, March 3,
185 7. The candidates elect were sworn into ofﬁce, March 4,
1857.
)(\/III;
BU'CHANAN'S ADMINISTRATION.
March 4, 1857—March 3, 1861.
JAMES BUCHANAN, PA., President. JOHN C. BRECKINRIDGE, KY.,
Vere-President.
Congresses. Sessions.
I, December 7, 1857—June 14, 1858.
2, December 6, I858---March 3, 1859.
1, December 5, I859—June 25, 1860.
THIRTY'SIXTH CONGRESS‘ 2, December 3, 1860—March 3, 1861.
THIRTY-FIFTH CONGRESS.
* This year (1857) occurred a great ﬁnancial panic, during which there were 5,123
commercial failures. The administration was compelled to borrow money at a dis
count of 8 to 10 per cent.
422 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
ELECTORAL V0 T E.*

Democrat. Republican. American.
.- ’—James J. c. ‘ {‘dhn 0. W111. L.‘ ifinaie A. . I
Basis of Buchanan, Breckin- remont, Da ton, Fillmore, Done son,
States. 93,423. Vote. Pa. ridge, Ky. Cal. . J. N. Y. Tenn.
Alabama.......... 7 9 9 9 .. .. ..~ ..
Arkansas . . . . . . . . .. 2 4 4 4 . . . . . . . .
California . . . . . . . . . 2 4 4 4 . . . . . . . .
Connecticut . . . . . .. 4 6 ’ 0 0 6 6 o o 0 0
Delaware . . . . . . . .. 1 3 3 3 . . . . . . . .
Florida . . . . - . a . . -. I 3 3 3 o o o o o 0 o 0
Georgia............ 8 IO 10 10 .. .. 00 00
Illinois . . . . . . . . . .. 9 II 11 11 .. .. .. 00
Indiana . - - . . . . . - 0 II 13 13 I3 0 o o o o o o I
Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 v 4 . . . . 4. 4 . . . .
Kentucky......... 10 12 12 12 .. .. .. ..
Louisiana......... 4 6 6 6 .. .. H ..
Maine............. 6 8 .. 8 8 .. 00
Maryland . . . . . . . . . 6 ‘ 8 . . . . . . 8
Massachusetts..... 11 13 ' . . 13 I3 .. 00
Michigan . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 . . 6 6 . . . .
Mississippi . . . . . . . . 5 7 7 7 . . . . . . . .
Missouri........... 7 9 9 9 .. .. H ..
New Hampshire. . . 3 5 . . 5 5 . . . .
New Jersey........ 5 7 7 7 .. .. 00 00
New York . . . . . . . . 33 35 . . . . 35 35 . . 00
North Carolina. . . . 8 10 10 10 . . . . 0 .
Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 23 . . . 23 23 . . . .
Pennsylvania . . . . . . 25 27 27 27 . . . . . . . .
Rhode Island.. . . .. 2 4 . . . . 4 4 . . . .
South Carolina. . . . 6 8 8 8 . . . . . . 00
Tennessee . . . . . . . . 10 12 12 12 . . . . . . . .
TeXaS............. 2 '4 \4. 4 .0 o. .0 00
Vermont . . . . . . . . .. 3 5 .. .. _ 5 5 .. 00
Virginia . . . . . . . . .. 13 15 .15 15 .. .. .. ..
Wisconsin . . . . . . . . 3 5 . . . . 5 5 . . . .
Totals.. . . . . ..234 296 174 T7? 114 114 8 8
THE CABINET
Secretary of State . . . . . . . . . . Lewis Cass, Mich.
Secretary of Treasury . . . . . ..Howell Cobb, Ga.
Secretary of War . . . . . . . . . .John B. Floyd, Va.
Secretary of N avy.. . . ; . ..Isaac Toucey, Conn.
Secretary of Interior. . . . . . ..Jacob Thompson, Miss . . . . . . ... .Continued.
Attorney-General . . . . . . . . . .Jeremiah S. Black, Pa.
Postmaster-General. . . . . .Aaron V. Brown.
POLITICAL SI T UA T ION—A glance at the electoral vote
shows that the persistent effort of the pro~slavery leaders to
unify the Democratic party in their interest had at last succeeded.
* The popular vote was, Buchanan, 1,838,169—19 States; Fremont, I, 341 ,264—
11 States; Fillmore, 874,534—1 State.
THE UNITED STATES. 423
Buchanan's election was a triumph for the South. The large
vote for the Republican nominee showed the possibilities of the
new party. The popular vote of the country was largely against
the Democrats. The American or Fillmore vote represented
those who wished to ignore the Slavery question. _As things
were shaping they must swing to some positive position ere
long. It but remained for the Republicans to take a ﬁrm stand
on the Slavery question. The agitation was sure to go on, and
that in a way which must weaken Democracy by schism, for the
extreme Southern leaders were beginning to see that the “ Squat-
ter Sovereignty” idea was not one which would bring them
slavery extension, but would in the end defeat their long cher-
ished intentions.‘ They found that they were not natural
colonizers, and that to establish a plantation in Kansas, or any
Territory, and stock it with slaves, was a very different thing
from taking up a small tract by a free-footed young farmer,
ambitious 'to plow, sow and reap for himself. This was where
“ Squatter Sovereignty” was proving deadly. Not much wonder -
that when the extreme Southern Democrats saw their mistake——
or rather repented of their commitment to it, for they never
favored it except as a means, perhaps their only means then,
of capturing the entire Democratic organization—they backed
away from it, charged its recognized authors‘or expounders,
Douglas and others, with weak, unfair, and even treacherous,
dealing, and ﬁnally resorted to the plan of a separate con-
federacy.*
DRED SCOTT DECISION—The decision of the U. S.
* Two other methods of adding to the diminishing political importance of the
South had been broached. One was to reopen the African slave trade. This
would provide a means of pouring into the Territories an unlimited stream of slave
immigrants, and thus competing with the greater numbers and resources of the
North. The other was to conquer and annex Cuba and Central America. This was
the meaning of the Lopez ﬁlibustering expedition which started from New Orleans
(1851) for-Cuba. And so with the Walker ﬁlibustering expedition, from the same
place (185 5), which operated on Central America. As encouragement to this idea
of conquest and annexation, the Ostend Manifesto was proclaimed by our American
ministers in England, France and Spain, citing that the safety of the United States
required the acquisition of Cuba.
424 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
Supreme Court, delivered by Chief justice Taney, March 6,
18 56, in the Dred Scott case, awakened intense interest, and be-
gat feelings of alarm thoughout the North. Its political effect
was to bring the position of the extreme pro-slavery Democrats
into bold-relief. When Calhoun, years before, asked that the
Constitution be extended to the Territories, he had two lines of
thought: (I) That the Constitution sanctioned slavery. (2) That
its extension would extend slavery, for a slave was property as
anything else material was property. As we have seen, he was
driven from this ultra position, or rather his position became un-
tenable, by reason of the growth of the “ Squatter Sovereignty”
idea. But now the Supreme Court had come squarely to his
position, and ‘even gone beyond it.* Notwithstanding the slave
was by the Constitution and for purposes of representation three-
ﬁfths of a freeman, he became by the decision a chattel “ without
rights or privileges except such as those who held the power
and the government might choose to grant him.” The plaintiff,
Dred Scott, was not even a plaintiff in court, but a mere thing
without status, and his case was dismissed for want of jurisdic-
tion. Further, the Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional,
and no act of Congress could be passed under the Constitution
* As this important case was the last pro-slavery effort to sustain itself by form of
law, and as the drift thenceforth is toward armed arbitrament, it _is well to know
its history. The case opened:
7 DRED SCOTT U. S. Circuit Court, Dist. Missouri.
vs. { To April T., 1854.
jOHN F. A. SANFORD. Trespass Vi et armis.
~The plaintiﬁ", Dred Scott, was an original slave of F. A. Sanford, of Missouri.
His owner resided in Illinois, a free State, with him from 1834 to 1838. He further
resided with him in Minnesota Territory, free soil also, as being north of 36° 30’,
the Missouri Compromise line of 1820. He then removed back to Missouri with him.
The slave there resisted a ﬂogging by bringing suit for damages, on the plea that
residence in Illinois and Minnesota had made him a free man. The defense was
that a descendant of slave ancestors could never be free, was not a citizen, had no
status in court. The plaintiff won in the District Court. An appea‘ brought it to
the Supreme Court. The opinion of the Chief justice was not unanimous, but dis-
senting Opinions were ﬁled. At the time of the decision many of the free States
had laws, and all were operating on the principle, to the eﬂ‘ect that a slave leaving
his slave State and entering a free one was no longer a slave, but free. For the
opinions in full, see Howard’s U. S. Supreme Court Reports, vol. 19, p. 393.
THE UNITED STATES. 425
with a view to preventing a slaveholder from entering any State
or Territory with his slave property any more than from enter-
ing it with his goods and chattels of whatever description.
The legal effect of the decision was not only to wipe out the
Compromise measure of 1820, which had been done construc-
tively by those of 1850, but to wipe out those of 1850 also, which
had introduced the Squatter or Popular Sovereignty idea; that
is, the idea of leaving the question of slavery to be decided by the
people of the Territories when they came to form State Constitu-
tions. It, in ﬁne, opened all the Territories and all the free States,
to the advent of slavery, no matter what their local laws might
say on the subject. It nationalized the institution, by degrading
the slave to the level of a horse, cow, plow or carriage, and over-
rode every sentiment of humanity respecting him, as well as the
old and well—established notion that as an institution slavery was
a creature of State, or local, enactments. The decision was all too
plainly a reﬂex of the extreme Southern sentiment to meet with
sanction from the North, and as it destroyed the hope of Douglas
and his how important Democratic following for a settlement of
the question on the basis of Popular Sovereignty, they began to
drift away from the regular party organization.
T HIR T Y-FIF T H C ON GRESS—First Session—Met Dec.
7, 185 7. The Presidential election carried along with it a Demo-'
cratic majority in both branches of the Congress. The Senate
stood 39 Democrats, 20 Republicans, 5 Americans; the House
131 Democrats, 92 Republicans, 14 Americans. The tone of the
parties was different also. The Republicans were squarely across
the way of the Democrats. The Democrats were emboldened
by recent successes, and by the fact that the administration was
heartily with them. This latter they had been assured ‘of by
the message, which was all they could have wished. On the
absorbing question of slavery as presented by the Kansas difﬁ-
culty, the President took the ground that the State ought to be
admitted at once under the Lecompton Constitution,* which
sanctioned slavery.
* The pro-Slavery party had (1855) adopted the Pawnee Constitution, which was
simply the Constitution of Missouri, with a criminal code added raising numerous
426 POLITICAL HISTORY.
The House organized by electing James L. Orr, S. C., Demo-
crat, Speaker. A contest immediately arose over a bill, framed
in accordance with the President’s suggestion, to admit Kansas
under the Lecompton Constitution. For three months the con-
tention was bitter, abusive, and sectional. The Republicans took .
the ground that the Lecompton Convention, having been called
to frame a Constitution and having done so, the instrument must
be ratiﬁed by the people before the State could ask for admission. _
In this they were supported by Douglas, Broderick, Adrian,
Hickman, and other Democrats (called Anti-Lecompton Demo—
crats), who saw their theory of popular sovereignty destroyed
if the people were to be denied an opportunity to express their
preferences for or against slavery in their Constitution, by direct
vote on the instrument itself. The Southern Democrats stood’
solid for the bill and the President’s position, that the delegates
having been called to make a Constitution, there was no need
i of submitting it to the people. The bill passed the Senate. In
the House it passed with the proviso that the Constitution should
be ﬁrst voted on by the people. A conference bill was ﬁnally
agreed uponhwhich must be set down as an inexcusable, if not
shameless, piece of legislation, ‘inasmuch as it offered a bribe to
the State to adopt the Lecompton Constitution. This bill ad-
mitted the State with the House proviso, and the additional
proviso that in case it adopted the Lecompton Constitution‘, it
should have a large grant of public lands. To the credit of the
Territory this did. not have the desired effect, and on the sub-
oﬁ'ences against slavery and imposing the death penalty. Not wishing to submit
this to the people they called another Convention to meet at Lecompton to frame a
Constitution. This was submitted to the people for'ratification (December, 1857) by
ballots printed “ Constitution with Slavery,” and “ Constitution without Slavery.”
As this gave the voter who was opposed to other features of the instrument no
opportunity to record his views, the Free State party refused to vote, and refused to
consider it a submission of the instrument to popular verdict. They, therefore,
through the Territorial Legislature, which body they had secured control of at a
regular election in which both parties participated, ordered another election which
would give the people an opportunity to vote for or against the Constitutiomand
not for or against a single clause in it. This was the election held in August, 1858,
which repudiated the Constitution by nearly 10,000 majority.

THADDEUS STEVENS.

WENDELL PHILLIPS.
428 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
mission of the Constitution to the people, Aug. 2, 1858, it was
rejected by an overwhelming majority. Minnesota became a
State in the Union, May II, 18 58. Congress adjourned, June 14,
1858.
T HIRT Y-FIFT H CONGRESS—Second Session—Met Dec.
6, 1858. The session was barren of political results, though
much discussion was had over slavery, the disposition of public
lands among heads of families, afterwards known as the Home- _
stead policy, and the appropriation of public lands for school
purposes. Oregon entered the Union, Feb. 14, 1859. Congress
adjourned sz'ne die, March 3, 1859.
AN EXCITING SUMMER—The supreme topic was slavery,
'7 and Kansas was the pivot on which it turned. The rejection of
the Lecompton Constitution with slavery gave opportunity for
another convention, at Wyandot, july, 1859, which drafted the
Wyandot Constitution without slavery. This was ratiﬁed by the
people, by a majority of 4,000. It was the Constitution under
which Kansas‘ was afterwards admitted, jan. 29, 1861. This
verdict of the people of Kansas in favor of a free State showed
that there was nothing in the popular sovereignty idea upon
which slavery could rely. '
The affair of john Brown at Harper’s Ferry, Oct. I 7, 1859,
shocked sentiment both North and South. The audacity of his
effort to stir up a slave insurrection, or to advance the anti-
slavery cause by seizure of a town, and by armed force, awakened
at ﬁrst a feeling of repulsion. But the anger it begat, in the
slave States, their eagerness to arm for defense, their desire to
implicate the entire North in the raid, and their swift execution
of the criminal, had the effect of eclipsing his crime by sympathy
for the man, and by further animosity toward slavery itself. The
hanging of john Brown, Dec. 2, 1859, at Charlestown, W. Va.,
marks the date when the discussion of the right and wrong of
slavery passed all political limits, and became general in social
circles, in jurisprudence, and in religion.
- HIRTY-SIXTH CONGRESS—First Session—Met Dec.
5, 1859. The Congressional elections had resulted favorably to
the Republicans, and, though without a majority in the House,
THE UNITED STATES. 429
they outnumbered any other party. Analysis of the respective
branches showed, in the Senate, 38 Democrats, 25. Republicans,
2 Americans; House, 109 Republicans, 86 Democrats, 13 Anti-
Lecompton Democrats, 22 Americans. This situation led to a
protracted dispute over the organization of the House. Balloting
was carried on two months, before it resulted in the choice of
William Pennington, Republican, N. J., as Speaker. .
The application of Kansas for admission under the Wyandot
Free State Constitution opened the slavery discussion with all
its accustomed severity and prolixity. The House admitted the
State, but the Senate rejected it, and engaged in a lengthy and
desperate attempt to get. back to the old Calhoun position that
slavery in the Territories was beyond the jurisdiction of either
Congress or the Territorial Legislatures ; in other words, that it
must follow the Federal Constitution, and was inherent in the
common law regarding personal property. An effort to pass .a
Homestead bill drew strictly party debate. The pro-slavery
Democrats opposed the policy of cheap lands to immigrants.
The Kansas experience had proved that .the more populous
North was the best colonizer, and that any extra inducement
would only lead to an increased number of Free States. A
‘spirited party discussion sprang up over the report of the com-
mittee appointed at the instance of Mr. Covode, Pa., and known
as the “ Covode Investigation,” to examine into the conduct of
the Administration respecting the admission of Kansas as a slave
State. The report found the Administration guilty of bribing
members and editors to advocate the admission of the State
under the Lecompton Constitution. Congress adjourned, June
25,1860. '
ELECTION OF 1860—The Democratic National Conven-
tion met at Charleston, S. C., April 23, 1860. Delegates were
present from all the States, to the number of 303. Caleb Cush-
ing, Mass., presided. An early division of sentiment respecting
slavery arose. The Southern and all extreme pro-slavery
Democrats held that, under the Dred Scott decision, slavery
could not be interdicted in the Territories. The Douglas Dem-
ocrats held squarelyto the doctrine of squatter, or popular sov-
430 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
ereignty. The dispute over these positions was so grave and
lengthy that balloting for a candidate did not begin till May 1st.
After ﬁfty-seven ineffectual ballots, no choice appeared. Stephen
A.‘Douglas, Ill., stood highest, but never rose above 15 3 votes,
202 being necessary to a choice, under the two-thirds rule. A
Douglas, or Popular Sovereignty platform had been adopted by
the convention, and thereupon many delegates from the Southern
States withdrew. Seeing that no choice was possible, the con-
vention adjourned to‘ meet at Baltimore, June 18. The places
of the withdrawn delegates had, in the meantime, been ﬁlled by
those favorable to Mr. Douglas. The nominees therefore became
Stephen A. Douglas, lll., for President, and Herschel V. Johnson,
Ga., for Vice-President. A portion of this convention also se-
ceded, and met the seceded Charleston convention on the 28th.
The platform affirmed the Cincinnati platform of 18 56, and added
clauses pledging Democracy to a Paciﬁc Railroad, and govern-
ment aid therefor; favoring the acquisition of Cuba; denouncing
State enactments designed to defeat the Fugitive Slave law; ac-
quiescence in Supreme Court decisions, but construction of them
in the vein of Popular Sovereignty.
The seceders from the Charleston Convention organized in
Charleston and adjourned to meet in Richmond, June 1 1. They
then adjourned to meet in Baltimore, June 28. Here they
were reinforced by the seceders from the Baltimore Conven-
tion, under the lead of Butler and Cushing. The nominees be-
came John C. Breckinridge, Ky., for President, and Joseph Lane,
Oregon, for Vice-President. The platform afﬁrmed the Cincin-
nati platform of 18 56, and pledged the party to a Paciﬁc Rail-
road; to the acquisition of Cuba; favored the execution of the
Fugitive Slave law; announced that the unorganized territory
of the United States was open to all citizens with whatever kind
of property ; that the federal government must protect the rights
'of persons and property wherever its authority extends; that
the right of sovereignty begins when the settlers in a territory
have a population adequate to the formation of a State constitu-
tion, and is consummated by the admission of theiState, and
that then its people stand on a par with the people of all the
THE UNITED STATES. 431
States, and the State ought to be admitted with or without
slavery, as its constitution provides.
The Republican National Convention met at Chicago, May
16, 1860, in the “Wigwam,” built for the purpose. ‘Delegates
were present from all the Northern States and from Delaware,
Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri and Virginia, with scattering
representatives from all the Southern States except the Gulf
States. The work of the Convention ended in a single day by
the nomination of Abraham Lincoln, 111., for President, and
Hannibal Hamlin, Me., for Vice-President. The platform an-
nounced:(1) the necessity of the Republican party; (2) main-
tenance of the principles of the Declaration; (3) denounced all
schemes of disunion; (4) maintenance of the rights of States;
(5) denounced the administration for attempting to force Kansas
in as a slave State under the Lecompton constitution and con-
trary to the will of her people; (6) decried the extravagance of
the administration; (7) the normal condition of the Territories
is free, and no stock in the dogma that the constitution carries
slavery there; (8) the admission of Kansas as a free State; protection to American industry, a Homestead law, a Paciﬁc
Railroad, Internal Improvement. '
The American party, under the title of “ Constitutional Union,”
met at Baltimore, May 9, 1860. Twenty States were repre-
sented. John Bell, Tenn., was nominated for President, and
Edward Everett, Mass, for Vice-President. Their only hope of
success was in throwing the election into the House. The
platform afﬁrmed “ the constitution of the country, the. union of
the States, and the enforcement of the laws.”
The campaign was vigorously conducted. There was much
argument over the respective attitudes of the parties _on the
slavery question. On the part of Republicans spectacular
features were introduced after the manner of the Harrison cam-
paign of 1840. Mr. Lincoln was pictured as “ The Rail Splitter”
of the ‘West, with telling effect among farmers and the industrial
classes.- As the campaign advanced and the hopelessness of the
pro-slavery Democrats increased, they began to turn their atten-
tion to the remedy which secession provided. The November
432 POLITICAL HISTORY.
result was a choice of Republican electors from every free State,
except New‘ Jersey, which gave four for Lincoln and three for
Douglas, and. a consequent majority in the Electoral College.
This led to prompt action on the part of South Carolina, whose
Legislature was then (November) in session to choose electors.
Instead of doing so that body called a State Convention, which,
Dec. 17, 1860, passed the ﬁrst “ Ordinance of Secession.”
THIRTY-SIXTH CONGRESS— Second Session. —— Met
Dec. 3, 1860. Probably no session of Congress was ever called
upon to meet so many new and grave propositions. Cer-
tainly none had ever convened amid such serious surroundings.
The only situation analogous to it was in 1832, when South
Carolina attempted to nullify the Tariff Act of 1828. Then
Jackson took strong ground in his message against the right of
a State to contravene national legislation, and promptly applied
enough force to hold the dissatisﬁed State to her place in the
Union. Mr. Buchanan’s message took the Jackson view of the
situation, but when‘ it came to applying coercive means, he
doubted if a State’s obedience could be compelled, for the reason
that compulsion meant war, and war on a State Was not author-
ized by the constitution. ‘
This message, so disappointing to the Union sentiment of the
country and so encouraging to the Secession sentiment, brought
a stream of compromising efforts, prominent among which was
one introduced by John Crittenden, Ky., re-establishing the
old line of 36° 30’ as a permanent constitutional boundary be-
tween slave and free States. This did not meet the favor of the
Republicans, and without their endorsement the pro-slavery
Democrats refused to entertain it.
Legislation was virtually suspended for a time to await the
action-of the “ Peace Congress,” which assembled in Washing-
ton, Feb. 4, 1861. This had been called at the request of the
Legislature of Virginia (Jan. 19), and was composed of dele-
gates from thirteen Free and seven Border States. It afﬁrmed
by a close vote the Crittenden proposition, and made several
concessions, chieﬂy with a view of keeping the Southern border
States from falling into the secession whirlpool, and of inducing

JOHN J. CRITTENDEN.

EDWARD EVERETT.
28
434 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
some of the less hasty cotton States to retrace their steps. Con-
gress did not accept its measures, but passed what was known
as the ‘Douglas amendment to the constitution, which aﬁirmed
the popular sovereignty method of dealing with slavery in the
Territories, and raised a guarantee of non-interference with slavery
in the States. This amendment was never submitted to the
States or people, owing to the rapid secession of the States and
the beginning of hostilities.
As the Southern States seceded (see below), their members of
Congress withdrew. The Republican majority became strong
in both Houses. Kansas was admitted as a free State under the
Wyandot Constitution, Jan. 29, 1861. Other Territories, as
Nevada, Colorado and Dakota, were organized, without mention
of slavery, so asto avoid conﬂict with the Dred Scott decision.
The Republican majority took advanced ground relative to the
powers vested in the Constitution and Congress. The doctrine
that this was a nation and not a league, and that a nation had a
right to protect itself from within as well as without, took ﬁrm
hold. The Tariff Act of March 2, 1861, which increased duties,
afﬁrmed the principle of protection. The kindred prin-
ciple of Internal Improvement by the National government was
so fully established as to be placed beyond future question by any
party. Loans were authorized and an issue of Treasury notes
ordered, thus carrying the implied powers of the Constitution
to the limit which extreme necessity demanded.
In February the Electoral count was made, showing 180 votes
for Lincoln and Hamlin, 72 for Breckinridge and Lane, 39 for
Bell and Everett, and 12 for Douglas and Johnson. Congress
adjourned sine dz'e, March 3, 1861.
SECESSION MO _VEMENT—Secession from the Union as
a remedy for grievances, real or imaginary, had been made
familiar by that school of statesmen who regarded the Constitu—
tion as in the nature of a compact between the States and Gov—
ernment, and who'insisted on a strict interpretation of that in-
strument. They would tolerate no stretch of power on the part
of the government, not even for the purpose of preservation, but
Claimed thatin all matters of doubt the States should have the
THE UNITED STATES. 435
beneﬁt of it, and that where a grievance existed tlie State was to
be the judge, preferring its own integrity and honor. The griev-
ance now was that growth of anti-slavery sentiment in the coun-
try made manifest in political form by the election of Lincoln,
which would forever crush further hope of slavery extension
and prove a standing menace to the institution as it existed in
the States.
South Carolina's call of a convention was the signal for simi~
lar action throughout the South. The movement was rapid and
concerted. It did not even hesitate at the responsibility of armed
trial to insure success.* The Southern Congress met at Mont-
gomery, Alabama, Feb. 4, 1861, delegates being present from
seven seceded States. It formed the Government of the Con—
federate States of America. Its Constitution was, in the main,
the one it had repudiated, a clause recognizing slavery and one
forbidding a protective tariff being the most radical differences.
'Ofﬁcers were elected, a cabinet chosen, the machinery of inde-
pendent government started, an attitude of war assumed. All
government property was seized and conﬁscated, forts were
erected, men were enlisted, equipped and drilled, and armies
were actually on their feet, while the Congress and the States of
the North were listlessly watching the unfolding of the terrible _
situation or wasting precious time in what proved to be idle
schemes of compromise.
XIX.
LINCOLN’S FIRST ADMINISTRATION.
March 4, 1861—March 3, 1865.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN, ILL., Preszdenz‘; HANNIBAI. HAMLIN, ME.,
Vice-President.
Congresses. Sessions.
1, July 4, 1861—August 6, 1861—Extra Session.
HIRTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS. 2’ December 2 1361—Iuly I7, 1362-
T L 3, December I: 1862—March 3, 1863.
* For going and coming of the seceding States, see page 141.
436
POLITICAL HISTORY.
' Congress. ' '
THIRTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS.
Sessions.
1, December 7, 1863—July 4, 1864.
2, December 5, 1864—March 3, 1865.
ELECTORAL VOT.E.*

Democrat.
m‘ S .5.
‘J; a as
8 '8 3”
g r--. ml“
<5 >_ L5
05 3'1 '4.
.O O. 9
.. . 4
I. O. 3
.. .. 3
O. ‘O O. .O 6
.0 O. 8
.. .. 7
9 9 ..
3 3 ..
00 u 10
O. I. 12 "I; 72
1
Coast.
Union orAmer.
P-h—q
- vi
. 28
5
e *9
=" g
,3 m
-=. hi
.0 0 o
O a O 0
O. 0 0
O o O 0
12 12
I. O o
12 12
IS 15
39 39 -
' Arkansas . . . . . . . .
Staten.
Alabama.........
California . . . . . . . .
Connecticut . . . . . .
Delaware. .. . . . .
Florida . . . . . . . . . .
\O 00 n .— 4: N N \1 Basis of 93,423.
Georgia . . . . . . . . .
Illinois . . . . . .. . . . .
Indiana . . . . . . . . . .1 1
Iowa...... . . . . ... 2
Kentucky.. . . . . . ..10
Louisiana . . . . . . . . 4
Maine . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Maryland. . . . . . ... 6
Massachusetts, . . . . 1 1
Michigan... . . . . .. 4
4 Minnesota . . . . . . . . 2
Mississippi. . . . . . . 5
Missouri . . . . . . . . . 7
New Hampshire . . 3
New Jersey . . . . . . 5
-New York... . . . ..33
North Carolina.. .. 8
Ohio Oregon......... . 1
Pennsylvania . . . ..25
Rhode Island .. . . . 2
South Carolina .. .. 6
Tennessee . . . . . . . .10
Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Vermont . . . . . . . . 3
Virginia . . . . . . . . . . I 3
Wisconsin . . . . . . .. 3
Totals. . . . 237
we» 04> 4=~ \0 V0“:-
N loo-cw o-o
con-No.10.) omwunOQ-b Ow 00006\
12
4
5
IS
__2
303
Republican.
PM.
_- g-
2‘ .5“
8 5 m
<3 :15
4 4
6 6
ii ii
13 13
4 4
.8
if), i5
6 6
4 4
35
55; 23
3 3
27 27
4 4
5 5
._5_ __5_
180 180
w w 1 1 _F ‘O J. Lane, Oregon.
* Thepopular vote was, Lincoln, 1,866,352—17 States, N. J. divided; Doug-
lax, 1,375,157--1 State, N. J., divided; Breckinridge, 845,763—11 States; Bell,
589,581-3 States.
:
2i... .
.__.____.__=_.__________=.=____._____=___§.__.___..
...A, .
a a .
a:=5..._____._______==_=_._.____w==2....=_____=_._.__=._=______._=._____=_==5: . _____=: .. . ____é;=55______=____====_==_=
linnmnnmmuummmnr-
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllltlIll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIllllllllllll
1|Imumnmmlmmumunnmulmm
PRESIDENTS FROM 1853 TO 1869.

umummmgm"a;
I
I
I
II
I
I
_I
II
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
l
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
'
I
|
I
II
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I‘
I
l
I
I
I
I
l
|
I
|
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
it
been rr'r-‘r'rh '
llillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
....!
=____=___=_=5:_______=___=.________._.__.__._____._.=_=_.__.._=__________Y__=__=_=_=___.___====___=_.=
as
_._=___._==____._._a..________._______.______=.____=__.____=_====_a__.__==___=______=____=______a:________=_______________._.__________=_______=______ . .__._._____=_____.=____
"lllllllHIlilllllllllllllllllllllllilllllilllliiillllllllllllll
438 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
THE CABINET.
SeCrelary of State ...... ..w. H. Seward, N. Y. ‘
Secretary of Treasury.. . . .Salmon P. Chase, Ohio.
Secretary of War . . . . . . . . .Simon Cameron, Pa.
Secretary of Navy.. . . . . ...Gideon Welles, Conn.
Secretary of Interior.. . . ...Caleb P. Smith.‘
Attorney-General . . . . . . . . .Edward Bates, Mo.
Postmaster-General . . . . . ..Montgomery Blair, Md.
POLITICAL SI T UA T ION—When Lincoln came to Wash- '
ington to be inaugurated the Southern Confederacy was formed.
Of it Alexander H. Stephens, its Vice-President, said, March 21,
1861 : “ The new Constitution (Confederate) has put at rest for-
ever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institu-
tions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status
of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the imme-v
diate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jeffer-
son, in his forecast, had anticipated this as the ‘ rock upon which
the old Union would split.’ . . . The prevailing ideas enter-
tained by him (Jefferson) and most of the leading statesmen of
the time were that slavery was a violation of the laws of nature,
that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically,
and that somehow or other itwould prove evanescent and pass
away. . . . Those ideas were fundamentally wrong. They
rested on the assumption of the equality of the races. This was
an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a govern-
ment built on it ‘ when the storm came and the wind blew it fell.’
Our new government rests on exactly the opposite idea. Its
foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great truth
that the negro is not the equal of the white man; that slavery
-—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal
condition. This, our new government, is the ﬁrst in the history
of the world based on this great physical and moral truth.”
To convert this Confederacy of form into one of fact was the
Southern _cause. The condition was one of war already, so far
as the South was concerned. There had been for some time a
systematic 'transfer of government arms and munitions ‘of war
I from Northern to Southern arsenals, and these had speedily sur-
rendered to insurgent demands. The naval vessels had been
scattered in remote foreign parts, and were not immediately
THE UNITED STATES. 439
available for either defensive or offensive purposes. The Federal
soldiery within the Southern States had given up their forts and
stations or were besieged therein. National ﬁnance was con-
fused, the Treasury empty, the credit worthless. Seceded States
were being reinforced by the secession of others. Ofﬁcers in
the army, navy and in places of trust and power were resigning
every day to join their fortunes with those of their States, to the
consternation of the loyal members of the government and to
the utter demoralization of all machinery and system. No of-
ﬁcial knew whom to conﬁde in, how to organize, what to do.
It seemed as if secession had tainted everything and undermined
everything. Let Union effort take what shape it would, it was
confused by the uncertainty vof its surroundings, or balked by in-
genious constructions of laws and Constitution. The logic of
Attorney-General Black, which led to the conclusion that “ the
Union must totally perish at the moment when Congress shall
arm one part of the people against another for any purpose be-
yond that of merely protecting the general government in the
exercise of its proper Constitutional functions,” had resulted in
fatal hesitation on the part of the government and was to par-
alyze it still worse. Add to all the real danger to life from
deeply laid and widely ramiﬁed plots, and some faint idea of the
situation may dawn, as President Lincoln was forced to see it on.
March 4, 1861.
His inaugural was conservative, assuring to the Southern
States that slavery would not be disturbed in the Statesv if they
would seek a peaceful remedy for their grievances, invited Con-
stitutional amendments for the troubles, and closed: “In your
hands, my dissatisﬁed fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the
momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail
you. You can'have no conﬂict without being yourselves the
aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to ‘destroy
the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to
preserve, protect and defend it.”
The President proceeded to supply the Union garrison in Fort
Sumter. This was what President Buchanan had hesitated to
do, the Confederates having said they would regard‘ iti‘as la coei‘é'
440 POLITICAL HISTORY.
cive act. They began a bombardment of the fort, April 13,
1861, and on April 14, after a ﬁre of thirty hours, the ﬂag was
lowered in surrender. This ﬁrst overt act of rebellion, and this
ﬁrst triumph of civil war, disillusioned the country, and resent-
ment took the place of conciliation. For a time Democrats and
Republicans united in demanding sturdy measures, not only to
wipe out insult to the ﬂag, but to force the erring States into the
restraints imposed by the Constitution and laws. Armed attack
must be repelled, the majesty of law vindicated, the dignity of
order conserved, the unity of the nation restored, the supreme
strength of the government asserted throughout its jurisdiction,
and all in the now necessarily armed and forceful way invited by
the magnitude, vigor and determination of the attack. The issue
thus joined was the Great American Rebellion of 1861; or,
The Civil War in the United States of America. I
THZRT Y-SE VEN TH CONGRESS—Extra Session—Called
for July.4, I861. The. President had promptly recognized the
condition of civil war and called for 75,000 volunteers. These
were plainly inadequate, for the Confederacy of seven seceded
States had grown to eleven. The doubtful border States had
become a raiding ground for Confederate forces. Armies, fully
equipped, strong in numbers, ably ofﬁcered, ﬁerce in determina-
tion, were swarming into strategical places and centering on the
Capital of the nation. Men must be had for defensive-as well as
offensive measures. Materials of war must also be provided-—
money, guns, ammunition, equipments. Hence this extra ses-
sion, in which only the Northern and border States were repre-
sented. Both branches were Republican. The Senate stood 31
Republicans, 11 Democrats, and 5 War Democrats; the House
106 Republicans, 42 Democrats and 28 War Democrats. The
House organized by electing Galusha A. Grow, Pa., Republican,
Speaker. Happily for the country, there was a strong prepon-
derance of the Union element, and such prevalence of the liberal
construction doctrines, in the presence of dire necessity, as freed
energetic war measures from the tedious debates which they had
hitherto provoked. The disastrous affair of Bull Run (July 21,
1861) proved an additional ‘incentive to speedy and vigorous

HAMLIN.
HANNIBAI.
1/
SIMON CAMERON.
442 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
legislation, for it further disclosed the determination of the Con-
federates, helped the Unionists to understand the magnitude of
the force they had to meet, and proved the imminency of the
danger which hung over the capital.
The President was therefore empowered to call out 500,000
volunteers, a national loan was authorized, appropriations were
made for the army and navy, an act was passed for the punish-
ment of conspiracy and for the conﬁscation of all property used
against the government, and as a means for additional revenue
an amended Tariff act was passed, Aug. 5, 1861, which con-
siderably increased the duties and contained distinctive protec-
tive features. The anti-war or peace Democrats interjected
measures of negotiation and compromise into all the delibera—
tions on war measures, but the hour for procrastination had
passed, and it was not deemed expedient nor proper to further
parley with armed, and thus far triumphant, rebellion. After
resolutions pledging further men and money to the administra-
tion, should they become necessary to aid in the suppression of
the rebellion and the execution of the laws, the Congress ad-
journed, August 6, 1861.
T HIRT Y-SE VEN T H C ONGRESS—First Regular Session.
. ——-Met December 2, 1861. Like the preceding, this was a War
Session. The Democrats had’ somewhat recovered from the
shock occasioned by the ﬁring on Sumter, and had drawn their
lines sufﬁciently close to make a party issue of many of the
most vigorous war measures. Over the question of“ what to do
with captured slaves?” they took positive ground against the
bills which were passed, forbidding the return of fugitives and
declaring those free who were employed against the government
and for insurrectionary purposes,* and so of the bill prescribing
* This is not said of the pronounced War Democrats, who were in concert with
the Republicans on active war measures, nor even of those who, in ofﬁcial position,
used the privilege of a minority to freely and intelligently criticise the acts of a ma-,
jority. It is said of those who sought to hold the organizationv and to commit it to
a decided anti-war policy; who even went sofar as to encourage opposition to the
war among their constituents, and keep up the spirit of the Confederates by aiding
associations likei-giqthe “ Knights of the Golden Circle,” “ Sons of Liberty,” etc.,
whose objects were to release prisoners of war, invite raids, engage in conspiracies
THE UNITED STATES. 443
the “ Iron-Clad Oath,” whose design was to exclude from gov-
ernment service all who were engaged in rebellion or who sym-
pathized with it. The session witnessed the passage of a bill
giving public lands to the States for the endowment of Agricul-
tural Colleges; also the passage of the Homestead Bill, which
had been so frequently before Congress since the formation of
the Republican party. An increase in Tariff rates was made by
the act of Dec. 24, 1861. Congress adjourned, July 17, 1862.
T HTR T Y-SE VEN T H C ON GRESS—Second Session.--Met
Dec. 1, 1862. A War Session, in the midst of national neces-
sity more imperative than ever. Large appropriations were
made for army and navy purposes. The Treasury was authorized
to negotiate further loans. But ready money was scarce. There
was no currency adequate to the huge transactions of the war,
and none uniform. In this strait the Congress sanctioned a
National (Greenback) Currency, after long and able discussion
involving its constitutionality, the meaning of the power “to
coin money and issue bills of credit,” the inherent right of the -
government to protect itself, the analogy furnished by the old
National Bank, the respective attitude of parties on the question
from the beginning.
Nor was the situation simpliﬁed when the question of more
men came up. This involved the draft as a means of procuring
soldiers, with all the technical objections which a strict construc-‘
tion of the constitution gave rise to. The act which passed pro-
voked the hostility of anti-war Democrats throughout the entire
North, and in several States the Courts held it unconstitutional.‘
Its enforcement in New York gave rise to the riots of July, 1863,
which were only suppressed by armed interference of the Federal
authorities. '
Another measure, made necessary by the exigency of the
hour, was the act to suspend the writ of Halzeas Corpus. This also
excited the opposition and enmity of all who wished to be free‘
to vindicate the Confederate cause, either by writing or speaking
in its favor, or by any other act short of actual enlistment under
to resist drafts—as in New York—enlist men for the Southern army, and give aid _
and comfort to the enemy in various ways.
444 POLITICAL HISTORY.
its banners. The peace Democrats vehemently opposed its pas-
sage, and it was perhaps the most unpopular of the stringent
war measures, saving always the draft act. Dec. 31, 1862, ‘the
act to admit West Virginia passed, which took effect June 19,
1863. Congress adjourned sine die, March 3, 1863.
ABOLZTZON 0F SLA VER Y.-—All the pledges of the free
> States were of an intent not to interfere with Slavery in the
States where it existed. All the negotiations and compromises
of 1861 embraced the same idea. M r. Lincoln, in his inaugural,
gave it out that Slavery in the States had nothing to fear from
his administration, if the issue of disunion were not further, or
violently, pushed. The anti-slavery sentiment was not essentially
an abolition sentiment. Even the revulsion of feeling occasioned
by the ﬁring on Sumter had not served to lift it to the point of
interference with the institution of Slavery within State limits.
But the question of Slavery, ever complex, was, after the be-
ginning of the war, more complicated than ever. It was forcing
itself on the ofﬁcers of the army at every step. In the ﬁeld
slavery was a part of the Confederate service, contributing to
the strength of its armies, helping it to resist the Union troops,
aiding it to win victories. It therefore was hostile, as much so
as the. armies themselves, or as cannon, muskets, ammunition,
tents, stores, whose destruction war justiﬁed.
This the Administration saw. But it saw other things too:
(I) A probability of holding the doubtful Border States and
making their allegiance ﬁrmer by compensating them for their
slaves in case they abolished slavery. This the President recom-
mended to Congress, March 2, 1862. It was approved, but
not accepted by the Border States as being impracticable. In
fact it met the opposition of the entire Democratic party.
(2) He saw that to take any more decided step at that time
would be to alienate the conservative anti-slavery sentiment of
the Free States. That is, he did not yet regard the country as
_ educated to the point of necessary or compulsory abolition.
(3) He saw that if the rebellion were allowed to drag because
of a want of energy on the part of the administration, or fear
to cripple’ any and all the resources which helped to sustain it,

A
.
,/
//
/
JEFFERSON DAVIS
/
,
{Vi/l i
./ l |
I

\\\ .

\

.\ ...Rst...
ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS
445
446 POLITICAL HISTORY or
the more determined anti-slavery sentiment of the Free States
would rise against him and demand abolition as necessary to
the suppression of civil war. ,
Congress had moved very cautiously, being content with a
measure forbidding the return of fugitives,-and one declaring
free those slaves who were captured while aiding rebellion.
General Fremont, in the Department of 'Missouri, had, Aug.
31, 1861, declared the slaves of rebels free, but the President
overruled his order. General B. F. Butler, in Virginia, had
declared slaves “ contraband of war,” and liable to conﬁscation-
Most of the ﬁeld ofﬁcers were either returning them to their
masters, or hesitating about what to do with them.
Rebellion was increasing in vigor, and slaves were part of
that energy. By the laws of war the contraband property of
the enemy is conﬁscate. By act of Congress “ the property of
persons engaged in treason or rebellion against the United
States” was liable to seizure and conﬁscation. The time had
come when the weapons of the enemy of whatever kind must be
wrenched from his grasp, when the “ Union must be saved with
slavery,” or, that failing, “ without it.” 7 _
On Sept. 22, 1862, the President issued his proclamation to
the effect that he would emancipate “ all slaves within any State
or designated parts of a State, the people whereof shall be in
rebellion against the United States on the 1st day of January,
1863.” “If such sections are in good faith represented in Con-
gress on that day, it shall be deemed conclusive evidence that
such State and the people thereof are not in rebellion against the
United States.” »
No attention was paid to this. It was followed, Jan. I, 1863,
by the celebrated Emancipation Proclamation, for which the
country now seemed ready, “ as a ﬁt and necessary war measure
for suppressing rebellion.” It applied only to the States and
portions of States actually in rebellion, and which were unrepre-
sented in Congress, or were not in the possession of the Union
armies. Two years afterwards (February 1, 1865) the Thirteenth
Amendment to the Constitution passed the Congress, and was
ratiﬁed by three-fourths of the States, so as to become effective
THE UNITED STATES. 447
by‘ Dec. 18, 1865. It is in almost the'precise words of the his-
toric ordinance of 1787 relative to the territory riorthwest of
the Ohio. This amendment ended African slavery in the United
States of America. .
T HIR T Y-EI GH T H C ON GRESS—First Session—Met Dec.
7, 1863. The House organized by electing Schuyler Colfax,
Republican, Indiana, Speaker. The Senate contained 36 Re-
publicans and 14 Democrats; the House 102 Republicans and
83 Democrats. Nine of the latter were from the Border States.
The Union Democrats had mostly gone entirely over to the
Republicans. Some, however, had gone back into the regular
Democratic organization, which was now pretty squarely on an
anti-war basis. The session was proliﬁc of war measures, on
most of which party lines were strictly drawn. That which
excited most bitter debate was the repeal of the Fugitive Slave
Law of 1850 by a vote of 27 to 12 in the Senate, and 86 to 60
in the House. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution
passed the Senate, but did not pass the House by the requisite
two-thirds till the next session. Among the revenue bills
were those creating a system of Internal Revenue by a tax on
domestic manufactures, one imposing a tax on incomes over
$600 which was very unpopular and short-lived, and one creat-
ing the system of National Banks. All these were compara-
tively new measures, justiﬁed by the condition of the country
and a state of war, yet at variance with the strict construction
notions on which the Democrats based a determined opposition.
On June 30, the Tariff Act of 1864 was passed, which increased
the rate of duties, and' made them still more protective. Con-
gress adjourned, 'July 4, 1864.
ELECTION OF 1864.—-The Republican National Conven-
tion met at Baltimore, June 7, 1864, and renominated for Presi-
dent, Abraham Lincoln,* Ill., and for Vice-President, Andrew
Johnson, Tenn. The nomination of the latter was a recognition
of the Union men of the South. The platform: (1) Pledged
* Mr. Lincoln had inclined to the one term idea, but by advanced endorsement
for a second term among the Legislatures of the Northern ‘States, as in the case of
Jackson for his second term, he concluded to stand. ~
448 POLITICAL HISTORY.
the party to aid the government in the suppression of rebellion.
(2) N 0 peace except one based on unconditional surrender of all
armed rebels. (3) An amendment to the Constitution pro-
hibiting slavery. (4) Thanks to soldiers for maintaining the ﬂag.
(5) Approval of the course of administration. (6) No vio-
lation of the laws of war. Favored foreign immigration
and a Paciﬁc Railroad. (8) The national faith pledged to the
redemption of the public debt must be kept inviolate. (9) Ap-
proval of the “ Monroe doctrine.”
The Democratic National Convention met at Chicago, Aug.
29, 1864, and nominated for President, George B. McClellan,
N. J., and for Vice-President, George H. Pendleton, Ohio. The
convention was dominated by the reac'tionary or peace wing of the
party, called by their opponents “ Copperheads.” The platform
announced: (1) Adhesion to the Union under the Constitution.
(2) Demanded, “ after four years of failure to restore the Union by
war,” a cessation of hostilities and a peace convention. (3)
Denounced military interference with elections as revolutionary.
(4) Objects of the party are to preserve the Union and the
rights of the States unimpaired. (5) Denunciation of the war
measures in general. (6) Administration denounced for disre-
gard of duty to prisoners of war. (7) Sympathy of the party
for soldiers and sailors.
A Convention of Radical Men met at Cleveland, Ohio, May
31, 1864, and nominated John C. Fremont, Cal.,-for President,
and'John C. Cochrane, N. Y., for Vice-President. They adopted
a platform nearly like that of the Republicans, but with a clause
endorsing the one term principle. This was designed to head
off the renomination of Lincoln, who had given offense to them
by his tardy action respecting slavery. The candidates with-
drew in favor of the Baltimore nominees.
The position taken by the Democrats in their platform to the
effect that the war was a failure, and that‘ its cessation was
demanded by the country, presented an issue which the Repub-
licans met squarely, and with conﬁdence. The result was a
popular verdict in their favor, not only in the Presidential but in
the Congressional contests.
\
\
\
%\
_\ \
A. . \ c... ..a 5 \
\_\ \_._\..\.._... _...\\\\.\.\\.‘


ROBERT E.LEE.


. \\\\ .. . ..
. \... ..
\ is? Q
\ _
\
\

1s... ._\
...~ \
a
A...
.4 _
.. x
x \.
u. \ R. e
i \ . ‘
\“ .@.
\\
s
\w.
\

s \
in


\ .. s
_.
.e
sT-oNEwALL JACKSON.
29
450 POLITICAL HISTORY.
T HIRT Y-EIGH T H C ONGRESS—Second Session.—Met
Dec. 5, 1864. Necessary war measures were passed, the Thir-
teenth Amendment to the Constitution by the House, and the
bill creating the Freedmenls Bureau. The status of the rebellious
States came up in the proceedings attending the electoral count
in February. Both Houses regarded them in such a condition
as to make a valid election for President within their borders
and under our laws impossible. Their vote was, therefore, not
considered. The count showed 212 votes for Lincoln and John-
son, and 21 for McClellan and Pendleton. Congress adjourned
sine die, March 3, 1865. On March 4, Lincoln and Johnson
were sworn into ofﬁce.
XX.
LINCOLN’S SECOND ADMINISTRATION, AND
JOHNSON’S.
March 4, 1865——March 3, 1869.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN, ILL., President. ANDREW JOHNSON, TENN.,
Vz'ce-H'eszdem‘.
Congresses. Sessions.
1, December 4, 1865-July 28, 1866.
THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS‘ {2, December 3, 1866—March 3, 1867.
1, March 4, 1867-March 30, 1867. Extra ses-
2, July 3, 1867—July 20, 1867. } sion with
FORTIETH CoNcREss. 3, November 21, 1867—Dec. 2, 1867. recesses.
4, December 2, 1867-July 27, 1868.
5, December 7, 1868—March 3, I869.
ELECTORAL VO T E.*

Republican. Democrat.
Abraham Andrew‘ (Geo. B. Geo. H.T
Basis of Lincoln, Johnson, McClellan, Pendleton,
States. 127,381. Vote. Ill. Tenn. N. J. Ohio.
1-Alabama......... 6 8 ..
1-Arkansas . . . . . . . . 3 5 . .
California . . . . . . . .. 3 5 5 5 . .
Connecticut . . . . . . . 4 6 6 6 . . . .
Delaware......... 1 3 .. 3 3
TFlorida . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 . . . . . .
* The popular vote was: Lincoln, 2,216,067—22 States; McClellan, 1,808,725
-3 States; not voting, 11 States.
1' In a state of rebellion’. Not voting. 81 votes lost.
'.\IrIOI)NIrI WVI—IVHEIV
'(IHVMEIS 'H WVI'ICIIAA


/
/
‘ /
I
.l: Ii /
I
K)‘
l ,
/


j/i'
451
452 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
Electoral Vote—Continued.

Republican. Democrat.
rAbraham Andrew‘ (Geo. B. Geo. H. ‘
Basis of - Lincoln, Johnson, McClellan, Pendleton,
States. 127,381. Vote. Ill. Tenn. N. J. Ohio.
*Georgia . . . . . . . . . 7 9 . . . .
Illinois............ 14 16 16 16
Indiana . . . . . . . . . . 11 13 13 13
Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 8 8 8
Kansas........... I 3 ‘ 3 3 .. ..
Kentucky......... 9 11. .. II 11
*Louisiana . . . . . . . . 5 7 . . . . . . . .
5 7 7 7 " "
Maryland . . . . . . . . . 5 7 7 7 - ' ' '-
Massachusetts.. . . .. IO 12 12 12 .
Michigan.......... 6 8 8 8 . .
Minnesota . . . . . . . . 2 4 4 4 . .
*Mississippi . . . . . . . 5 7 . . . . .
Missouri....- . . . . .. 9 11 11 11 . ..
Nevada . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 2 2 . . . . 1 vacancy.
New Hampshire. . . . 3 5 5 5 . . .
NewJersey........ 5 7 .. 7 7
New York . . . . . . . . 31 33 33 33 . . .
*North Carolina. . . 7 9 . . . . . . .
Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 21 21 21 . . .
Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . I 3 3 3 . . .
Pennsylvania . . .. 24 26 26 26 . . .
Rhode Island. . . . .. 2 4 4 4 . . .
*South Carolina. . . 4 6 . . . . . . .
*Tennessee . . . . . . . 8 10 . . . . . . . .
*Texas............ 4 6 .. .. . ..
Vermont........... 3 5 5 5 . ..
*Virginia . . . . . . . . . 8 10 . . . . . . .
West Virginia.. . . .. 3 5 5 5 . . .
Wisconsin . . . . . . . . 6 8 8 8 . .
Totals.... . . . . .242 314 212 212 21 21
THE CABINET.
Secretary of State . . . . . . .W. H. Seward, N. Y . . . . .Continued.
Secretary of Treasury. . . . Hugh McCullough, Ind. -
Secretary of War. . . . . . . .Edwin M. Stanton, Pa. . . . .Continued.
Secretary of Navy . . . . . . .Gideon Welles, Conn. . . . .. “
Secretary of Interior. . . ..James Harlan, Iowa.
Attorney-General .. . . . . ..James Speed, Ky . . . . . . . . . .Continued.
Postmaster-General . . . . . ..William Dennison, Ohio. . . “
THE [NA UGURAL—Gettysburg, July 2, 3, 4, 1863, turned
the tide of rebellion; It had fallen backwards, and was, March
4, 1865, hemmed in and‘ under control. The President’s in-
augural was full of gratitude for past success, of hope for ﬁnal
success, and of that kindliness of spirit and gentleness of disposi-
* In a state of rebellion. Not voting. 81 votes lost.
THE UNITED STATES. 453
tion which had gotten to be accepted as characteristic of the
man and ofﬁcial. In it he said, “With malice toward none,
with charity for all, with ﬁrmness in'right, as God has given
us to see the right, let us strive on to ﬁnish the work we are
in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall
have borne the battle, and for his widow and orphans—to do
all which may achieve a just and lasting peace among ourselves
and with all nations.”
On the 9th of April, 1865, General Lee surrendered to General
Grant, at Appomattox Court-House, the remnant of the Con-
federate army, 26,000 men, and the great rebellion was practically
ended. On the night of April 14 (Good Friday), 1865, President
Lincoln was shot by J. Wilkes Booth, and died on the ‘morning
of the 15th. On the same day Andrew Johnson was sworn in
as his successor.
RECONSTRUCTION—It was hoped by North as well as
South that President Lincoln had mapped in his mind a policy
of reconstruction. But such did not appear. The exact rela-
tion a seceded State, which had failed to establish its secession
by force, occupied toward the other States, and how it could be
reinstated, were new and delicate points, requiring the skill of a
master to handle. Much more was involved. The place of the
negroes, now free and citizens, had to be considered. The North-
ern mind inclined to a probationary period for the rebellious
States, during which time they could adjust themselves to a new
situation, give guarantees, through provisional governments that
they would assure freedom to the negroes, wipe out their obnox-
ious codes, repeal their secession laws, rescind their adhesion to
the Confederacy, and, repledged and prepared anew, re-enter the
Union, on the condition of any fully equipped State, with the
consent of Congress.
President Johnson signalized his administration by adopting a
hastier policy of reconstruction, one which imposed no probation
on the States, but invited them to reform State governments and
apply for admission at once. He belonged to the old South-
ern school of strict interpreters or State Rights, and his policy ‘
invited the supremacy in the new States of the most active sup-
45.4 POLITICAL HISTORY.
porters of rebellion. This policy did not receive the support of
the Republican party. An antagonism therefore sprang up be-
tween the administration and the majority party, which‘ was
ﬁercer even than that between Tyler and the Whigs. The Presi-
dent however forced his measures as best he could, and carried
with him what was known at the time as the “Amnesty senti-
ment ” of the country and also the Democratic sentiment. He
was squarely outside of the party which had elected him Vice-
President, from the very beginning of his term as President.
T HIRT Y-NINTH C ONGRESS—First Session—Met Dec.
14, 1865. The favorable turn of the rebellion, and the emphatic
endorsement of Lincoln’s administration by the country, had
greatly increased the Republican majority in both Houses of Con-
gress. The Senate stood 40 Republicans and 1 1 Democrats; the
House 145 Republicans and 40 Democrats. The House organ-
ized by re-electing Schuyler Colfax, Republican, Ind., Speaker.
The passage of an amended F reedmen’s Bureau bill drew from
the President a veto, in which he foreshadowed his intention of
opposing reconstruction legislation where it involved favors to
the negroes, and, in general, until the whites, who were most
concerned, were again represented in Congress. Another bill,
similar in terms, providing for the education and military pro-
tection of the negro race, was passed in July. This was also
vetoed, on the ground that the civil courts were Open for their
protection, and that the matter was one entirely within the con-
trol of the States. It became a law over the veto.
The passage of the Civil Rights bill, in March, which was de-
signed to secure to the negroes some of the rights of citizenship
by enabling them to enforce their Contracts in the United States
Courts, was vetoed, On the ground that it was an attempt to'con--
fer Citizenship on men just released from bondage and overrode
the State laws and State tribunals. Though the bill was passed
over the President’s veto, the Congress proceeded to clarify the
question of citizenship by passing the Fourteenth Amendment
to the Constitution, June 16, 1866, which became operative, July
28, 1868. This measure the President also opposed, as did the
Democrats. The Homestead laws were extended to public
.el.
n.1,.
.. .1.
/
a,» ‘a
a“.
.k..
5%,.
02 3w
'4
ECGmm HZ 232mm Omzmwawﬁ Hmm mGWWmZUmWmU.

455
456 * POLITICAL HISTORY OF
lands in the South, the army was reduced, some internal taxes
were abolished. Congress adjourned, July 28, 1866.
T HIR T Y-NfNT H CONGRESS ——Second Session.—-Met
Dec. 3, 1866. The President’s attitude to the majority in Con-
gress had become hostile and deﬁant. By his vetoes of Con-
gressional enactments he had given proof of his intention to re-
duce the power of Congress over the work of Reconstruction to
a minimum. By his repeated proclamations to the Southern
States he had as fully shown that he intended to make the work
of Reconstruction as purely an executive one as he could, and
this though his attention and that of the country had been
called, by an address of the Republican National Committee, to
the fact that no provisions existed in the Constitution or outside
of Congress for the re-establishment of States which had broken
their allegianceby secession and failed to establish secession by
force.
The situation was not conducive to deliberate legislation. If
the President was vindictive, the majority was retaliatory. More-
over, fear began to dawn that if he carried his deﬁance much
further it might end in an executive coup de main on the very
existence of the legislative branch of the government. Retalia-
tive thus assumed the virtue of protective steps. A threat of
impeachment was made by the appointment of a House com~
mittee to take testimony. The time had not yet come for
decisive action. _
By act of July, 1862, the President had been empowered to
extend amnesty to those who ceased to be rebellious. The
President had used his power under this act to what was con-
sidered an inordinate extent. In January, 1867, the act was re-
pealed. He still continued his amnesty proclamations, claiming
a right to do so under the Constitution. To prevent the possi~
bility of his taking the advantage of Congress during a recess’,
the meetings of the next Congress were ﬁxed so as to succeed
each other immediately. This lasted only duringhis term of
ofﬁce. His claim to issue orders directly to the army was met
by an‘act compelling him to issue them through the general in
command. This was squeezed in with the Appropriation bill,
THE UNITED STATES. 457
so that he could not veto it without defeating the whole measure.
He vetoed the Nebraska act, which provided for the admission
of that State on the condition that suffrage should exist without
reference to race or color. This was passed over his veto, and
Nebraska was admitted, March 1, 1867.
Hitherto the President had possessed one advantage. His in-
clination was his policy of Reconstruction; or, if policy he had,
it was not so systematic as to prevent his forging ahead without
much regard to legal forms and technical obstructions. The
Republican majority had all along been hampered by Constitu-
tional difﬁculties and bafﬂed by their party opponents and the
Executive. But they had at last formulated a policy. It divided
the States which had seceded into military districts, and placed
each under an ofﬁcer of the army, who was empowered to keep
the peace and protect person and property until a State conven-
tion could be chosen and a State government formed which re-
cognized citizenship without regard to race, color or previous
condition, and contained a ratiﬁcation of the Thirteenth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Then only would
Congress agree to readmit the State. This was the bill “ To
Provide Efﬁcient Governments for the Insurrectionary States,”
and designed to secure to the country some of the fruits of the
war, which, it was thought, the President was fast frittering
away. It was passed, vetoed, and passed over the veto, March
2,1867.
Here was a carefully outlined Congressional policy against a
loose unsystematic Executive policy. To make the conﬂict
sharper, the same day witnessed the passage of the Tenure of
Ofﬁce bill, also over the veto, by a strictly party vote in the
Senate of 35 to 11, and in the House of 138 to 40. It made
the Senate, which was a recognized part of the appointing power,
a party also to removal from oﬂ‘ice by providing that the Presi-
dent’s removals during recess should not be ﬁnal unless approved
by the Senate, and that if appointees during recess were not ap—
proved by the Senate, the old incumbent held his place. The
design was to prevent wholesale removals during recess and the
setting up of a Cabinet and Department ofﬁcers who might fur‘
4 5 8 POLITICAL HISTORY.
ther frustrate the will of Congress. Violation of its provisions
was declared a high misdemeanor. This somewhat original and
summary work of Congress now went before the country for ap-
proval or rejection, as did the conduct of the President. A
Tariff act was passed March 2, 1867, which made the duties on
wool and woollen goods highly protective. Congress adjourned
sine die, March 3, I867.
FORTIET H CONGRESS—Extra Session—Met March 4,
1867, according to act passed at second session of Thirty-ninth
Congress. The issue between the Congress and President had
been carried into the Congressional campaign, and the result
was a return of a Republican majority. The Senate stood 40
Republicans to 14 Democrats, the House I 38 Republicans to
47 Democrats. House organized by re-electing Schuyler Col-
fax, Republican, Indiana, Speaker. Positive legislation was not
the design of the meeting. It was a session for the emergency,
a policing of a critical situation, an overseeing of previous legis-
lation, that it might be executed, at least not frustrated. The
continuity of the session was secured by an adjournment on
March 30, 1867, to meetJuly 3, 1867. A second adjournment was
had July 20, to meet Nov. 21. A third adjournment was had
Dec. 2,1867.
FOR T IET H C ONGRESS—First Regular Session—Met
Dec. 2, 1867. Before legitimate work could begin, the President
renewed his contest by removing Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary
of War, Feb. 21, 1868, and appointing Lorenzo Thomas in his
place, contrary to the provisions of the Tenure of Ofﬁce Act.
The Senate resolved that “the President had no power to re-
move the Secretary of War and designate any other ofﬁcer to
perform the duties of the ofﬁce.” On the 24th the President
sent a message to the Senate claiming the right of removal on
the ground that Stanton was an appointee of his predecessor,
and was now holding only by sufferance, and that therefore he
was not removing an appointee under the Tenure of Ofﬁce Act.
A resolution to impeach the President passed the House on
the 24th, by a vote of 126 to 47. Articles were drawn bearing
on his violation of the act in question, which passed the House

. STANTON.
EDWIN M

SCHUY LER COLFAX.
459
460 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
on March 2. On the 5th, the trial began, and lasted till May
16, when a test vote was taken on the Eleventh Article, a
leading one. The result was, for conviction, 35 Senators; for
acquittal, 19 Senators, 14 of the latter being Democrats and 5
Republicans. The Constitution requiring a two-thirds vote to
convict, the verdict was acquittal on this article. On May 26,
a vote was had on the ﬁrst and second articles, with the same
result. It being evident that conviction could not be had, no
other votes were taken and the Court of Impeachment adjourned
sine die. _
The political differences between the President and the Repube
lican party were not softened by the impeachment trial, yet sin-
gularly enough the party did not suffer by its failure to convict,
nor did the President cease to pursue his policy of Reconstruc-
tion, save where he was hedged by Congress, till the end of his
term, when he retired to his native State, quite restored to the
favor of his old political associates, with whom he had broken
on the questions which gave rise to the rebellion. -
Congress adjourned, July 27, 1868..
ELECTION OF 1868.—-The Republican National Conven- ‘
tion met at Chicago, May 20, 1868, and nominated Ulysses S.
Grant, Ill., for President, and Schuyler Colfax, Ind., for Vice-
President. The platform (I) congratulated the country on the
success of the reconstruction policy of Congress. (2) Approved
of equal suffrage to all loyal men in the South, and of the doc-
trine that it was a question properly belonging to the loyal States.
(3) No repudiation of the National promises to pay. (4) Equal-
ization and reduction of taxation. (5) Reduction of interest on
National debt, and gradual payment of same. (6) Improvement
of our credit. (7) Denounced the corruptions of the Johnson
administration, and urged economy. (8) Lincoln’s death re—
gretted ;' Johnson’s treachery denounced. (9) Protection of the
rights of naturalized citizens. (10) Honor to the soldiers. (11)
Encouragement of foreign immigration. (12) Sympathy for all
oppressed people struggling for their rights; commendation of
those who served in the Rebellion, for 'their co-operation in
securing good government in the South.
THE UNITED STATES. 461
The Democratic National Convention met at New York, July
14, 1868, and nominated for President, Horatio Seymour, N. Y.,
and for Vice-President, Francis P. Blair, M0. The platform (I)
recognized the question ‘of secession and slavery as settled by
the war. (2) Demanded immediate restoration of the Southern
States, and the settlement of the question of suffrage by the
States themselves. ( 3) Amnesty for all past offences. (4) Pay-
ment of the public debt in lawful money, where coin is not called
for. (4) Equal taxation; one currency. (5) Economy; abolition
of the Freedmen’s Bureau; a Tariff for revenue, with incidental
Protection. (6) Reform of abuses in administration; independ-
ence of Executive and Judicial branches ; subordination of mil-
itary to civil power. (7) Maintenance of the rights of naturalized
citizens. (8) General arraignment of the Republican party, and
gratitude to Johnson for “ resisting the aggressions of Congress.”
The campaign was an active one. The leading topics were
the Reconstruction measures of the Republican party, and equal
suffrage. The latter was a new question, given prominence by
the condition of the freedmen, and by the probability that they
- would not be able to maintain their rights as citizens without
the ballot. It may be said that the verdict of the campaign led
to the proposal and adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment.
Grant’s apothegm, “Let us have Peace,” did much to tone the
severities of a campaign which would else have been very bitter,
owing to the hostility of the Republicans toward the Adminis-
tration. And as to the merits of the ‘issue between the Congress
and President—that is, as to whether the Congress or President
had a right to ﬁx the terms on which a revolting State could be
readmitted—the verdict was in favor of Congress and its plan of
approving of the Constitution of the applicant States, just as in
case of Territories when they ﬁrst applied for admission. The
November result was a decided Republican victory. _
FORT IET H C ONGRESS—Second Session—Met Dec. 7,
1868. The leading political measure was the Fifteenth Amend-
ment to the Constitution, which conferred the right of suffrage
on all citizens, without distinction of “race, color, or previous
condition of servitude.” It passed Feb. 2 5, 1869, and by March
462 . POLITICAL HISTORY OF
30, 1870, was ratiﬁed by three-fourths of all the States. In Con~
gress it was a distinctive party measure, drawing full Democratic
opposition. Before the country, it met with a conservative Re-
publican opposition, partly because it was regarded as too radical
an advance, and partly because it got complicated with the ques-
tion of amnesty, as advocated by Mr. Greeley and a school of
statesmen who thought that “ universal amnesty” ought to pre-
cede, and be a consideration for, “ universal suffrage.”
The Electoral count showed 214 votes for Grant and Colfax,
and 80 for Seymour and Blair. A question was raised over the
9 votes of Georgia, but as they did not affect the result, it was
not urged. Congress adjourned sine dz'e, March 3, 1869. Grant
and Colfax were sworn into ofﬁce on March 4.
XXI.
GRANT’S FIRST ADMINISTRATION.
March 4, 1869—March 3, 1873.
ULYssEs S. GRANT, ILL., President. SCHUYLER COLFAX, IND.,
Vice-President.
Congresses. Sessions.
1, March 4, 1869—April IO, 1869, extra session.
FORTY-FIRST CONGRESS. 2, December 6, 1869—July I 5, 1870.
3, December 5, 187o—March 3, 1871.
, 1, March 4, 1871-April 20, 1871, extra session.
FORTY-SECOND CONGRESS. { 2, December 4, 1871-June 10, 1872.
3, December 2, 1872—March 3, 1873.
ELECTORAL VOTE. *

Republican. Democrat.
_ Basis of rIJlysses S. Schuyler‘ Horatio Soy- Francis P.
States. 127,381. Vote. Grant, Ill. Colfax Ind. mour, N. Y. Blair, Mo.
Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8 8 8 . . . .
Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 5 5 . . . .
California........... 3 ' 5 5 5 .. ..
Connecticut . . . . . . . . 4 6 6 6 . . . .
Delaware . . '. . . . . . . . I 3 . . . . 3 3
Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . I 3 3 3 . . . .
Georg1a............. 7 9 .. 9 9
Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 16 16 16 . . . .
* Popular vote—Grant, 3,015,071—26 States; Seymour, 2,709,613—8 States 3
not voting, 3 States.
THE UNITED STATES. 463

Republican. Democrat.
Basis ot ' r—Ulysses S. Schuyler‘ E1360 Se - Francis P?‘
States. 127,381. Vote. Grant, Ill. Colfax, Ind. mour, N. . Blair, Mo.
Indiana............ 11 I3 13 13 .. ..
IOwa...-.-......-- 6 8 8 8 0-
Kansas.‘........... 1 3 3 3 H ~-
Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . 9 I I - - - - I! 1 1
Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 - - - o 7 7
Maine............. 5 7 7 7 .. ..
Maryland . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 . . - - 7 7
Massachusetts . . . . . . . 10 12 2 2 . . . .
Michigan - . - . . . . - Q 0 6 8 8 8 o e 0 0
Minnesota . . . . . . . . .. 2 4 4 4 . . . .
*Mississippi......... .5 7 .. .. .. .-
Missouri............ 9 II 11 11 .. ..
Nebraska............ 1 3 3 3 .. ..
Nevada.............. 1 3 3 3 .. ..
New Hampshire. . . . 3 5 5 5 . . . .
NewJersey......... 5 7 .. .. 7 7
New York. . . . . . . . . 31 33 . . . . 33 33
North Carolina . . . . .. 7 9 9 9 . . . .
Ohio....... . . . . . .. 19 21 21 21 .. ..
Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . l 3 . . . . 3 3
Pennsylvania- . o o . . 0 s o o o 0
Rhode Island...... 2 4 4 4 oo 00
South Carolina . . . . 4 6 6 6 . . . .
Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . 8 10 10 IO . . o .
*Texas . . - . . . 00.000 4 6 .- 00 oo 00
Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 5 5 . . . .
*Virginia . - . . - s . . - . 8 IO 0 0 o o o o o a
West Virginia . . . s e 0 3 5 5 5 e o o 0
Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . 6 8 8 8 . . _._._
Totals . . . . . . . . . 243 317 214 214 80 80
THE CABINET.
Secretary of State. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .E. B. Washburne, Ill.
Secretary of Treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Geo. S. Boutwell, Mass.
Secretary of War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .John A. Rawlins, Ill.
Secretary of Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Adolph E. Borie, Pa.
Secretary of Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Jacob D. Cox, Ohio.
Attorney-General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E. R. Hoar, Mass.
Postmaster-General . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .J. A. J. Creswell, Md.
FORTY-FIRS T C ONGRESS—Extra Session—Met March
4, 1869, with a very large Republican majority in both branches.
The Senate stood 58 Republican, 10 Democrat, and 8 vacancies;
the House, 149 Republican, 64 Democrat, and 25 vacancies;
Mississippi, Texas, Virginia and Georgia not being represented.
The House organized by electing James G. Blaine, Me., Speaker. '
* These States not yet readmitted. 23 votes lost.
464 ' POLITICAL HISTORY.
This brief session was made interesting by a strictly party
struggle over the admission of Texas, Virginia and Mississippi,
before they had ratiﬁed the Fourteenth Amendment to the Con-
stitution. On April 10 a bill passed which required them to
submit their constitutions as they stood to the people, and their
Legislatures to ratify both the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amend-
ments, after which they would be readmitted. The extra session
adjourned April 10, 1869.
FOR T Y-FZKS T C ON GRESS-—F irst Regular Session—Met
December 6, 1869. The lot of President Grant had not thus
far been a happy one. Unlike his predecessor, he had no policy
of Reconstruction aside from the acts of Congress, and these he
declared he would enforce, on the principle that the best way
to secure the repeal of such as were objectionable was to show
their defects by actual and literal enforcement. But in this he
was largely headed off by a condition of affairs in the late rebel-
lious States, which was then attributed to the mistaken policy
of President Johnson. From whatever cause, a party arose in
the Southern States which prided in the name of“ Unrecon-
structed ” and “ Irreconcilable.” It opposed the Reconstruction
acts of Congress, and especially the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments to the Constitution. Further, many Northern
men had settled in Southern States. These, being in favor
with the negroes, and naturally supporters of the government,
gained a control of local politics which made them enemies of
the “ Unreconstructed.” They were denounced as “Carpet-
Baggers,” and the State governments they erected and supported
as “Carpet-Bag Governments.” But as they were operating
under color of local law, and insisting on rights for the citizen
which the Constitution plainly gave him, they could hardly be
ousted by regular forms. Ousted they must be, however. The
plan of terrorizing the negroes was hit upon. This was perfected
and carried out by those secret organizations which became
known as the Ku-Klux-Klan. Their operations were so effective as
not only to intimidate the negroes but to‘ drive out the Northern
immigrants. This achieved, the doctrine of “a white man’s gov-
ernment” became popular, and under it the regime of the respec‘

ELIHU B. WASHBURNE.

‘LL
GEORGE S. BOUTW
465
466 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
tive States passed back into the hands of those who had made,
supported and controlled them before the rebellion.
The operations of the Ku-Klux-Klan had not only been
locally violent, but.deﬁant of the Reconstruction acts of Con-
gress. Hence the President found his authority practically ig-
nored. All the time, too, questions arose as to the constitution-
ality of the Reconstruction acts. These occasioned delays and
invited dangers. In the latter part of 1869 the Supreme
Court came to his assistance and greatly strengthened his hands
by a decision to the effect “ that Congress had the power to re-
establish the relations of any rebellious State to the Union.”
This decision Sustaining the policy of Congress and the Republi-
can majority modiﬁed the tone of the Democrats, and in a great
measure changed their purpose to make Reconstruction a central
party feature. ,
The above situation gave rise to the Enforcement act, passed
May 31, 1870, by a party vote, which gave to the President all
needed powers to protect the freedmen and punish the perpetra-
tors of outrages against white and black. Enforcement of this
act did much to awaken Southern sentiment to the extent and
danger of the “ Klan” and to correct its abuses. It fell into dis-
repute, but was succeeded by other more open and ingenious,
yet not less effective, means of intimidation, some of which took
the shape of “ Riﬂe Clubs,” the “ White League,” and so on, all
of which were harder to meet by legal processes than the more
violent “ Klan.” .
Before the close of this session the halting States of Virginia,
Georgia, Texas and Mississippi had complied with the conditions
of reconstruction and were readmitted. This practically com-
pleted the work of reconstruction so far as the States were con-
cerned; that is, they had complied with the forms of law, but
much remained to be done to insure equitable enforcement of
law. By July 15, 1870, the date on which Georgia was received,
after hanging back with her ratiﬁcation of the Fifteenth Amend-
ment, the happy spectacle of a restored Union was again pre-
sented, though the votes of Arkansas and Louisiana were not
received on account of technical objections in 1872.
THE UNITED sTATEs. 467
The other leading political acts of the session were one to
enforce the Fifteenth Amendment, and one to amend the naturali-
zation laws. The latter law made penal the issue of fraudulent
naturalization papers, and authorized Federal supervisors of Con-
gressional elections in cities of over 20,000 inhabitants. The
Democrats opposed it on the ground that it was unconstitutional ;
the Republicans favored it on the charge of frauds in New York
by which the State had been carried for Seymour. They used
with effect the language of Horace Greeley that “more votes
had been cast for Seymour in one of the warehouse wards of
the city than there were men, women, children, cats and dogs
in it.”
In March, 1870, the Constitutionality of the Legal Tender
Act of 1862 came before the Supreme Court as newly organized.
It was decided to be constitutional. This was a partisan issue
from beginning to end. The Republicans pleaded absolute
necessity as a support for the law; the Democrats claimed that
it was an inexcusable stretch of constitutional power. The
former were consistent with that liberal interpretation of the
Constitution on which they based their ideas of Internal Im-
provement, Protection to American Industries, and scores of
measures relating to war and reconstruction. The latter were
hardly so consistent, for very many of them, when members of
the Confederate Congress, had for reasons of imperative necessity
advocated the issue of similar money, and that too, with the
“ promise to pay” extended to a period beyond which the inde-
pendence of the Confederacy should be recognized.
The decision, notwithstanding its opposition, soon won popu-
larity, and greatly increased the national credit. The popular-
ized “ Greenback” soon after became the banking capital of a
new party. The Tariff Act of July 14, 1870, had the effect
of greatly enlarging the free list. Congress adjourned, July I 5,
1870. '
FORT Y-FIRST C ONGRESS—Second Session.—Met Dec.
5, 1870. Reconstruction being completed in form, all the States
were represented for the ﬁrst time since 1861. The Senatestood
61 Republicans; 13 Democrats; the House, 172 Republicans; 71
468 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
Democrats. The President’s message advocated the annexation
of San Domingo. This gave rise to a bitter opposition on the
part of Charles Sumner, which took the shape of direct attack
on the administration. A commission was appointed which
reported favorably, and the matter was dropped.
A supplement to the enforcement act was passed, Feb. 28,
1871. It incurred the usual Democratic opposition, and was
passed by a strict party vote. It extended the power of super-
visors and marshals, and gave the Federal Courts jurisdiction
of cases arising out of violation of the Fifteenth Amendment.
On March 3 the ﬁrst civil service act in the history of the
government was passed. Under it a commission was appointed,
whose recommendations were not cordially received. Congress
adjourned sine die, March 3, 1871.
FOR T Y-SEC OND CONGRESS — Extra Session. — Met
March 4, 1871. The Republicans had suffered somewhat in
their representation. The Senate stood, Republicans, 57 ; Demo-
crats, 17; House, Republicans, 138; Democrats, 103. House
organized by re-electing James G. Blaine, Me., Speaker.
The leading political act was that of April 20, 1871, known
as the Ku-Klux Act. It was aimed directly at the secret organ-
izations existing in Southern States, which could not be effectually
reached under the enforcement acts of the previous session.
Indeed, these acts were proving weak in all respects, and in
view of the opposition they were meeting with, their propriety
was beginning to be questioned. Congress adjourned, April 20,
1871.
FORT Y-SECOND CONGRESS—First Regular Session.—
Met Dec. 4, 1871. This session gave rise to two acts, both of
which became noteworthy. The ﬁrst was The Amnesty Bill.
In its earliest shape it was a Democratic measure, formulated so
as to secure the inﬂuence of Mr. Greeley, editor of the New
York T ribune, soon to be the Democratic candidate for President.
It was bafﬂed by the Republicans for a long time by amend-
ments adding Mr. Sumner’s Supplementary Civil Rights Bill.
But it ﬁnally passed, May 22, 1872. Its effect was to remove
the disabilities imposed by Sec. 3 of 14th Amendment to the
THE UNITED STATES. 469
Constitution, from all but about 350 participants 'in the rebel-
lion.* .
The second was a Supplementary Enforcement act. The
former acts of Enforcement, including the Ku-Klux act, were
not strengthening the hands of the Executive in preserving order
and securing therights of citizens, as they were designed to.
The Democrats were squarely opposed to them, and so was a
strong minority within the Republican ranks. It became a
question whether the Congress should retreat or experiment fur-
ther with a doubtful question. A majority sentiment favored
another trial. Consequently the bill of June 10, 1872, was
passed, which gave any citizen deprived of his rights access to
the Federal courts, made it a penal offense to deprive, or con-
spire to deprive, any citizen of his rights under the amendments,
placed the United States troops at the call of the States to sup-
press conspiracies, and further declared such conspiracies rebel-
lions, to be suppressed by Federal force if the States failed-
This was regarded as the last stretch of Constitutional power in
time of peace, even by the advocates of the bill. If its effect
was to hasten the ﬁnal disintegration of the annoying, deﬁant
and cruel “Ku-Klux-Klan,” the same cannot be said of those
more ingenious and popular methods of opposition which were
relied on as supports of the idea of “A White Man's Govern—
ment.” The Tariff Act of June 6, 1872, made a material reduc-
tion in duties and added largely to the free list. Congress
adjourned, June 1-0, 1872.
ELECTION OF 1872.—*The ﬁrst ‘party in the ﬁeld was a new
one, styling itself “Liberal Republican.” This misnomer origin-
ated in Missouri, in 1870. A Liberal Republican would naturally
be one who favored a liberal construction of the Constitution.
But the new Liberal Republicans were those who thought the
Republicans had already exceeded, in their legislation, the
powers contained in the Constitution. They were therefore not
so liberal as the Republicans, but stricter in their interpretations,
sufﬁciently strict to draw the Democratic support, as we shall
* Subsequently other acts removed these disabilities from all who participated in
the rebellion, except Jeﬂ'erson Davis.
470 POLITICAL HISTORY.
see. A considerable Republican sentiment had been inclining
to this movement for some time. It was encouraged by the
“ General Amnesty” idea, advocated by Mr. Greeley and by
others who were at the time called “ Sentimentalists.” The fail-
ure of so many of the Reconstruction measures of Congress to
bring about desired results, the opposition they all excited, the
growing thought that they were of doubtful propriety, and even
of doubtful constitutionality, considering that they had no
longer the imperativenecessity of war as a basis of vindication,
further encouraged the movement.
In 1870 the Republican party, then in control of the Legisla-
ture of Missouri, split over the question of the removal of dis-
abilities from Confederates, under the State Constitution. Those
favoring removal, headed by B. Gratz Brown and Carl Schurz,
called themselves Liberal Republicans; those opposing removal
accepted the name of Radical Republicans. The former tri-
umphed. This was the nucleus around which kindred sentiment
gathered throughout the country. It gained headway by acces-
sions in several States, as Mr. Greeley and Mr. Fenton in New
York, Curtin in Pennsylvania, Trumbull in Illinois, and Charles
Francis Adams in Massachusetts. The Democrats in Congress
had fostered the sentiment. In the spring of 1871 there had
been an actual fusion of the Liberal Republicans and Democrats
in Ohio. The leaders denounced the Enforcement acts of Con-
gress and the efforts of the administration to bring about Recon-
struction under them. On the basis of a common feeling it was
thought the Democratic party could be captured by the move-
ment. A call was issued from Missouri, Jan. 24, 1872, for a
National Convention of Liberal Republicans, at Cincinnati, on
May 1. It nominated Horace Greeley, N. Y., for President, and
B. Gratz Brown, M0., for Vice-President. The platform (I) re-
cognized the equality of all men; (2) pledged the party to
Union, emancipation, enfranchisement, and to oppose the open-
ing of any question settled by the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Amendments; (3) demanded the immediate removal
of all disabilities; (4) local self-government with impartial suf-
frage, for the nation a return to the methods of peace; ( 5) Thor-

.T < . ‘ 2,.
‘tie-d . , V ' _ /1/ 4,44,?) I
u " ' . . i, ( r 1),,
twin’ ‘5 , _, ,Hjl,
. - ' {It},
.jfav
I
‘7,’!
/ '“Y 7/
'Q/e/
\\
\
a
~\\\\\\ .
-\\
~ \\
‘ I! .
,7)”, I; .07 11’
II’. /// y” //
[474K // /
\ R
\
\\
09")?
[1719767]
our” e7 / ,
//4/’,7/ .//////
CARL SCHURZ.
//
r
” /'///// "394/,
4 v , ' t
’/ ’ 99/1/19”,
/ /
j/

471
472 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
ough reform of the civil service, no President a candidate for re-
election; modest revenue for all the needs of the government;
on the matter of a tariff, the question relegated to the people of
the Congressional districts for discussion; (7) maintenance of
public credit, return to'specie payments, honor for the soldier,
no more land grants to railroads, fair dealing with foreign
powers. ,
The Republican National Convention met at Philadelphia,
June 5, 1872, and renominated for President Ulysses S. Grant,
Ill., and nominated for Vice-President Henry Wilson, Mass. Its
platform (I) pointed, as the result of Republican policy, to a
suppressed rebellion, emancipation, equal citizenship, universal
suffrage, no punishment’ of men for political offences, a humane
Indian policy, a Paciﬁc railroad, public lands freely given to ac-
tual settlers, protected immigration, uniform national currency,
high national credit, careful collection and expenditure of rev-
enue, large reduction of taxes and of public debt; (2) enforcement
of the new amendments to Constitution; (3) enjoyment of civil
and political liberty by all, no discrimination as to citizenship on
account of race, color or previous condition; (4) an improved civil
service; (5) no more land grants to corporations,but free homes
for the people; (6) gradual reduction of the public debt, Tariff
for protection; (7) honor to soldiers and sailors, abolition of
franking privilege, reduction in rate of postage, approval of the
administration, repudiation denounced, additional rights for
women, amnesty approved, respect for the rights of States.
The Democratic National Convention met in Baltimore, July
9, 1872. By pre-arrangement and with the hope of triumph
through the Republican schism it accepted the platform and,
nominees of the Liberal Republicans, and thus stood fully com-
mitted to “ emancipation and enfranchisement, and to oppose any
reopening of the questions settled by the Thirteenth, Four-
teenth and Fifteenth Amendments ‘to the Constitution,” and to
the further doctrine “that it is the duty of the government to
mete out exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color or
persuasion, religious or political.”
A Straight-out Democratic National Convention met at Louis-
THE UNITED STATES. 473
ville, Ky., Sept. 3, 1872, and nominated for President Charles
O’Conor, N. Y., and for Vice-President John Quincy Adams,
Mass. The platform was a plea for the rights of the States and
a repudiation of the Baltimore Convention as a betrayal of the
Democratic party “ into a false creed and a false leadership.”
The Temperance, or Prohibition, party met in National Con-
vention, for the ﬁrst time as a nominating body, at Columbus,
Ohio, Feb. 22, 1872, and nominated for President James Black,
Pa., for Vice-President John Russell, Mich. The platform de—
clared that as all political parties had proved unwilling to adopt an
adequate policy on the question of trafﬁc in intoxicating drinks;
therefore (I) the party pledges itself to the principles of the
Declaration and Constitution; (2) that effective legal prohibition,
State as well as national, is the only means of suppressing trafﬁc
in intoxicants; ( 3) that existing party competition for the liquor
vote is a peril to the nation; (4) dissuasion from the use of in-
toxicants, competency, honesty and sobriety as qualiﬁcations for
ofﬁce, no removals from ofﬁce for political opinion, prevention
of corruption and encouragement of economy, direct vote of
the people for President, a sound national currency, redeemable
in gold, labor reform, suffrage‘ without regard to sex, fostering
of the common schools. .
The campaign was peculiar in every respect. The Republi-
cans were sanguine, and scarcely needed to use ordinary cam-
paign energies. The Democrats were cold toward their nominee,
and mistrustful of the situation from the start. The Liberal
Republicans bore the “ heat and burden” of the day, their can-
didate even taking the stump, or rather making long railroad
jaunts for the purpose of meeting with and inspiring his
admirers. ' ‘
The November result was not a realization of Liberal Repub-
lican hopes. They had not captured the Democratic party.
The strength they brought to that party was far more than off-
set by Democratic desertions to the Republicans or outright re-
fusals to vote. Nor was it any more a realization of Democratic
hopes. The expected proﬁt from Republican schism was not
forthcoming at the polls. “ Fusion had resulted in confusion,”
was wittily said of the after-election situation. i
474 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
FORTY-SECOND CONGRESS —-Second Session-:- Met
Dec. 2, 1872. An interesting measureof the session was the
creation of the Credit Mobilier commission by the House. It
was created at the instance of Republicans to inquire into the
truth of charges made against prominent men during the cam-
paign by Democratic orators. The commission, consisting of
two Republicans, one Liberal Republican, and two Democrats,
made a full investigation and practically exonerated the mem-
bers charged, except Oakes Ames and James Brooks, who re-
ceived the condemnation of the House.
The Franking privilege was abolished, the President’s salary
raised to $ 50,000, and the salary of Senators and Representatives
to $7,500. This was the offensive “salary grab” which met
with such condemnation as to defeat many of the members who
participated in its passage. It was speedily repealed.
The electoral count in February showed 286 votes for Grant
and Wilson. Mr. Greeley died in November. The 66 Demo-
cratic electors therefore voted for other persons. Of these 42
voted for Thomas A. Hendricks, Ind., for President, with 24
scattering. Three of the scattering were for Greeley. They
were rejected. B. Gratz Brown received 47 for Vice-President,
with 19 scattering. - A grave question arose over the vote of
Louisiana and Arkansas. Two sets of Returning Boards existed
in these States, each of which had forwarded returns. The re-
sult was that both were rejected, and these two States lost their
vote.
Congress adjourned sine die, March 3, 1873. On March 4
Grant and Wilson were sworn into ofﬁce.
XXII.
GRANT’S SECOND ADMINISTRATION.
March 4, 1873—March 3, 1877.
ULYssEs S. GRANT, ILL., President. HENRY WILSON, MASS.,
Vice-President.
Congresses. Sessions.
1, December I, 1873—June 23, 1874.
2, December 7, I874-March 3, 1875.
1, December 6, 1875-August 15 1876.
FoRTY-FOURTH CONGRESS. 2, Dmember 4, 1876_M,mh 3’ i877.
FoRTY-THIRD CONGRESS.
THE UNITED STATES.
475
ELECTORAL VOTE.*
Basis of
States. 131,425.
Alabama . . . . . . . . . 8
Arkansas . . . . . . . . 4
California . . . . . . . . 4
Connecticut . . . . . . 4
Delaware . . . . . . . . 1
Florida . . . . . . . . . . 2
Georgia . . . . . . . . . . 9
Illinois . . . . . . . . . . 19
Indiana. . . ...13
Iowa............. 9
Kansas . . . . . . . . . . 3
Kentucky... . . . . ..10
Louisiana . . . . . . . . 6
Maine . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Maryland . . . . . . . . 6
Massachusetts . . . .11
Michigan.. . . .. 9
Minnesota . . . . . . . . 3
Mississippi . . . . . . . 6
Missouri . . . . . . . . . 13
Nebraska . . . . . . . . 1
Nevada . . . . . . . . . . I
New Hampshire. . 3
New Jersey . . . . . . 7
New York . . . . . . .. 3 3
North Carolina.. .. 8
Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Oregon . . . . . . . . . . 1
Pennsylvania . . . . .27
Rhode Island.. . . . 2
South Carolina. . .. 5
Tennessee.. . . . . ..
Texas............
Vermont . . . . . . . . .
Virginia. . . . . .. 9
West Virginia . . . . 3
Wisconsin.. . . 8
Total
H
(.860
IO
366
Not counted.
2 for Perkins, Dem., Ga.
3 for Greeley (not counted).
' s for Hendricks, D., Ind.
. . Not counted.
:1 s for Hendricks.
. . 12 for Hendricks.
. . 8 for Hendricks.
Republican. Lib. Republican.
Ugsses Henry‘ Horace B. Grat;
S. rant, Wilson, Greeley, Brown,
Ill. Mass. N. Y. Mo.
IO IO
'6 '6 . .
6 6 . .
3 3
4 4 . . . .
{ 6 for Brown.
21 2I .
I 5 1 5
I I I I . .
5 5
‘ ‘ ' ° 4 for Brown, Mo.
7 1 - -
i1; i3 . .
I I I I . . . .
s s --
8 8 . . . .
8 for Brown.
. . . . 6 for Hendricks.
1 for Davis.
3 3 . . . .
3 3 - - - -
5 5 I I O O
9 9 C O O O
as as -- --
IQ 0 o O 22 22 o o o o
3 3 I o o o
29 29 0 o o o
4 4- o o o o
7 7 I O O I
s s -- --
I I I I o o O o
5 s . i I‘ . .
10 _lg . . o o
286 286
* The death of Mr. Greeley before the Electoral count caused the casting of his 66
votes as scattering. The above table indicates the way they went for President.
For Vice-President the vote was still more scattered. Brown, Liberal Republican,
Mo., received 47; Julian, Democrat, kid, 5; Colquitt, Democrat, Ga., 5 ; Palmer,
Democrat, Ill., 3; Bramlette, Democrat, Ky., 3; Groesbeck, Democrat, ‘0., I;
Macken, Democrat, Ky., 1; Banks, Liberal Republican, Mass., 1. The 14 votes
476 POLITICAL HISTORY.
THE CABINET.
Secretary of State. . . . . . . .Hamilton Fish, N. Y. .' . . . . . . .Continued.
Secretary of Treasury. . . . .William A. Richardson, Mass.
Secretary of War . . . . . . . .William W. Belknap, Iowa. . .Continued.
Secretary of Navy . . . . . ..George M. Robeson, N. J. . . . . “
Secretary of Interior . . . . . .Columbus Delano, Ohio . . . . . . “
Attorney-General . . . . . . . . .Geo. H. Williams, Oregon. . . . “
Postmaster-General . . . . . . .J. A. J. Creswell, Md. . . . . . “
FOR T Y- THIRD C ONGRESS—First Session—Met Dec. 1,
1873. The Republican majority was still large. Senate: 50 Re-
publicans, 19 Democrats, 5 Liberal Republicans. House: 198 Re-
publicans and 91 Democrats, with a sprinkling of Liberal Repub-
licans. House organized by re-electing James G. Blaine Speaker.
The business depression which culminated in the panic of 1873
made cautious ﬁnancial legislation necessary. An act increas-
ing the national currency to $400,000,000 was vetoed as tend-
ing to inﬂation at a time when the tendency should be toward
resumption of specie payments. The bill could not be passed
over the veto for want of the necessary two—thirds, though a
strong minority in both parties thought inﬂation the proper
remedy. This idea became the basis of the Greenback party,
which began to ﬁgure about this time.
Lengthy debates which took a party turn were indulged over
a Republican measure to regulate inter—State commerce. So
with Sumner’s Civil Rights bill, which was designed to secure
to the colored citizens the rights comprehended in the Four-
teenth Amendment. It passed the House, but got no further.
An act was passed Sept. 14, 1872, which referred all matters
in dispute‘ between this country and England to what became
known as the Geneva Commission. This Commission now re-
ported that the sum of $15,500,000 was due the United States
for damages occasioned to American commerce by privateers
ﬁtted out under British auspices, bearing the British ﬂag, or
permitted to sail from British ports. At this session a Commis-
sion was raised to distribute this award (June 2 3, 1874).
of Arkansas and Louisiana were not counted on account of frauds in the elections
and duplicate counts by two opposing Returning Boards. The popular vote was:
Grant, 3, 597,070—31 States; Greeley, 2,834,079—6 States; O’Conor, 29,408 ; Black,
5,608. .

HENRY WILSON.

HAMILTON FISH.
477
478 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
What was known as the Poland Utah Bill became a law. It
created a District Court for the Territory, and excluded polyga-
mous persons from the jury-box when bigamy cases were being
tried. _ _
The Tariff Act of June 22, 1874, was passed. It was an effort
to correct the tendency of the act of 1872 toward low rates of
duty. The act of 1872, as well as the preceding one, had been in
the line of reduction. The panic of 1873 had taught the folly of
too rapid a reduction of rates, or too wide a departure from the
protective idea. The act of 1874 stiffened rates on dutiable
articles, clung to the protective idea, and at the same time allowed
a liberal free list, mostly of raw or unmanufactured articles.
Congress adjourned, June 2 3, 1874. ,
FORTY-THIRD C ONGRESS—Second Session—Met Dec.
7, 1874. The Administration was pinched in its Southern policy.
In Louisiana, for instance, two hostile State governments were
in existence, the one favorable to the rights of all citizens, the
other working under the auspices of the White League. They
had gotten to blows. Blood had run in the streets of New Or-
leans. The riots there, not to dignify them as war, threatened
to culminate in a war of races. The President had been appealed
to. The time had passed for that active interference which the
early period of reconstruction might have warranted. Yet he
could do no less than make some kind of effort for peace, and
naturally in behalf of the government which recognized the
largest liberty and Secured the amplest rights to all citizens.
Such interference was turned greatly to his hurt by politicians.
It was somewhat of an unfortunate juncture, for the President’s
Private Secretary, O. E. Babcock, came to trial for complicity
with the “ Whisky Ring,” but was acquitted and resigned.
Then came the impeachment of Belknap, Secretary of War-
(July 26, 1876), on the charge of selling an .Indian trading es-
tablishment. He, too, was acquitted. But _by this conspiracy
of circumstances the Administration suffered, and perhaps uns
justly, for though-the efforts of its enemies were desperate to
bring some of the alleged irregularities home to the White
House, they in no Case succeeded. All these things, however
THE UNITED STATES. 479
had their effect on public sentiment and contributed to bring
about that political whirl which made the Forty-fourth Congress
Democratic. -
This session was marked by the passage of the Civil Rights
bill, by a strict party vote. It secured the approval of the Pres-
ident, March 1, 1875. It is the bill which the Supreme Court
decided to be unconstitutional (October, 1883), on the ground
that the authority conferred on Congress by the Fourteenth
Amendment to give such amendment effect by appropriate legis-
lation, was not an authority which took away from States the
power to do the same thing, or interfered with their right to
do it.
On Feb. 24, 1875, House bill to permit Colorado to form a
State government was passed by a strict party vote, and so, or
nearly so, of the Resumption Act of Jan. 14, 1875. In this in-
stance, the Republicans strove to crown their ﬁnancial career by
looking to a period when the National promises to pay should
reach par in gold and silver. They were antagonized by the
Democrats, who, for the time being, seemingly forgot their hard
money notions of the Jackson era.
The Tariff Act of Feb. 8, I875, stiffened the rates on silks,
wines, tin-plates, and some other articles.
Congress adjourned sine die, March 3, 187 5.
FORT Y—FO UR TH C ON GRESS—First Session—Met Dec.
6, 1875. The House was Democratic and the Senate Repub-'
lican. The former organized by electing Michael C. Kerr, Ind.,
Speaker. This lengthy session was barren of far reaching polit-
ical results, owing to the attitude of the two Houses. The Demo-
crats in the House cultivated their majority situation, so as to
stand well before the country during the next presidential cam-
paign, by advocating a reduction of appropriations, taxation, etc.
In most of their efforts they were met half way by the Repub-
licans. Congress adjourned, August 15, 1876.
ELECTION OF 1876.—The year 1875 had been_ one of
political turmoil, especially in the Southern States. It had been
a year of political reverses for the Republicans in all sections-—
a “ tidal wave ” year, to use a popular expression. It was evident
480 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
that a close election was impending. By the extermination of
what were called the “carpet bag” governments in the South,
the Republicans lost much ground there, and could not hope to
control more than two' or three of the States. Owing to side
parties, the reverses of the previous year, the general feeling of
weariness over Southern agitation, and especially the hard ac-
countability to which a dominant party is naturally held during
ﬁnancial crisis, many Northern States hitherto strongly Repub-
lican had become debatable.
The new party calling itself “ The Greenback Party,”or rather
“ The‘ Independent Party,” met in National Convention, at Indi-
anapolis, May 17, 1876. This was an attempt to give coherency
to a movement which had for its object relief of the ﬁnancial
stringency and business depression which prevailed. It would
reach its end by using the credit of the government in the shape
of Greenbacks, and insisting on a sufﬁcient issue of them to re-
lieve all stringency and depression. The thought naturally dated
from 1873, the beginning of the ﬁnancial crisis. It received en-
couragement from the fact that the greenback was popular, and
would ere long be redeemable in gold. But it may be said to
have received its greatest impetus from the date of the Resump-
tion Act of 187 5. The Democratic party, contrary to its tradi-
tions, arrayed itself squarely against that measure. It was there-
fore in a position to ally itself with the Greenbackers. These '
alliances were made in several States, and in some the coalitions
were successful. Standing alone, the Greenback party obtained
a hold only in industrial districts, and there more on account of
the pleasing delusion of unlimited money than of any deeply
imbedded principle. It nominated for President, Peter Cooper,
N. Y., and for Vice-President, Samuel F. Carey, Ohio.
The platform (I) arraigned ‘both the Republican and Demo
cratic parties for refusing to foster “ ﬁnancial reform and indus—
trial emancipation.” (2) Demanded the repeal of the Specie
Resumption Act of Jan. 14, 1875. (3) The United States note
as a circulating medium, and a legal tender, and insistence on
Jefferson's theorythat “ bank paper must be suppressed and the V
circulation restored to the nation to whom it belongs.” (4) The
THE UNITED STATES. 481
government to legislate for the full development of all legitimate
business. (5) No further issue of gold bonds. (6) No further
sale of bonds with which to purchase silver as a substitute for
fractional currency.
The American National Party met as early as June 9, 1875,
in mass meeting, at Pittsburg, and nominated for President,
James B. Walker, 111.; for Vice-President, Donald Kirkpatrick,
N. Y. Its platform favored a Sabbath; prohibition; opposed
secret societies ; favored the thirteenth, fourteenth, and ﬁfteenth
amendments; arbitration as a means of averting war; the Bible
in schools; return to specie payments; a sound Indian policy;
a direct vote of the people for President.
The Prohibition Party met in National Convention at Cleve-
land, May 17, 1876, and nominated for President, Green C. Smith,
Ky.; for Vice-President, G. 4T. Stewart, Ohio. The platform in-
vited (1) prohibition in all places under control of the govern-
ment, and opposed all trafﬁc in alcoholic drinks. (2) Equal
suffrage and eligibility to ofﬁce. (3) Lands to actual settlers;
reduction of postage, and land and water transportation. (4) No
lotteries nor stock gambling. (5) Abolition of polygamy; Na~
tional observance of Sabbath; Free public schools; Free use of
Bible; Separation of sect from government and schools; Arbi-
tration; direct vote of people for President; redemption of paper
money in gold; economy.
The Republican party met in National Convention at Cincin-
nati, June 14, 1876. A signiﬁcant feature of the Convention
was the controversy over the method of casting the voice of the
States. Hitherto the State delegations had voted as a unit, the
sentiment of a majority of the delegates being the sentiment of
the State. This rule was now broken and the delegates voted their
choice, directly.‘ Rutherford B. Hayes, Ohio, was nominated for
President, and William A. Wheeler, N. Y., for Vice-President.
The platform declared (I) the United States is a nation, not a
league; (2) Republican work is not ﬁnished until the principles
of the Declaration are acknowledged in every State; ( 3) protec-
tion of all citizens; rigorous use of all constitutional powers to
that end; (4) redemption of U. S. notes in coin; (5) improved
31
482 POLITICAL HISTORY.
civil service; (6) rigid responsibility in ofﬁce; (7) no sectarian
control of schools; sufﬁcient revenue with protection; no more
land grants to corporations; protection to emigrants; enlarged
rights for women ; ‘extirpation of polygamy; honor to soldiers;
deprecation of sectional lines; arraignment of Democrats for
preferring Confederate to Union soldiers in public places;
approval of the Administration.
The Democratic party met in National _ Convention at St.
Louis, June 28, 1876, and nominated for President, Samuel J.
Tilden, N. Y.; for Vice-President, Thomas A. Hendricks, Ind.
The platform (I) afﬁrmed a need of reform and pledged the
party to the'Union and to acceptance of the amendments as a ﬁnal
settlement of the controversies of civil war; (2) denounced the
reconstruction-policy of Congress; the failure to make good the
legal tender notes ; the high taxes and extravagance; the ﬁnan-
cial imb'ecility which had made no advance toward resumption ;
the Resumption Act of 1875 as hindering resumption; demanded
its repeal; (3)'demanded a “judicious system of economics; ”
reform in taxation; (4) the existing tariff denounced as a
“ master-piece of injustice, inequality and false pretence; ” (5)
Reform in public land system; reform in treaties with China;
reform in civil service; in higher grades of service; in abuses
of Republican party.
DISPUTED RESULT—The result of the election, Nov. 7,
1876, gave rise to a prolonged dispute which involved many
grave questions of law, and necessitated the raising of a special
tribunal for its ﬁnal determination. Up to the meeting of Con-
gress the condition of affairs was thus: The election returns
showed that the Republicans carried all the Northern States
except New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and Indiana, and
that the Democrats had carried all the Southern States except
Louisiana, Florida and South Carolina. Owing to lack of faith
in the Returning Boards of these three States, the result was
disputed by the Democrats. Owing to a similar lack of faith in
the methods of the Democrats in those States, the Republicans
were Suspicious of their interference with the Returning Board
counts and reports.

SAMUELJIJILDEN'
, MORTON‘
P
R
E
V
I
L
O

JOHN A LOGAN'
483
484 - POLITICAL HISTORY OF
Committees of both parties visited the scenes of strife.
Whether their presence and advice helped a just conclusion has
never been deﬁnitely ascertained. But it did not take much in-
vestigation to ﬁnd'that the vote of South Carolina was Republi~
can, and this the Democratic members of the Congressional
Investigating Committee conceded. This disposed of one of
the doubtful States.
The Returning Board of Florida gave 926 Republican major-
ity for the Republican electors. It was cited before ‘the Supreme
Court of the State, and a recount was ordered. This gave 206
Republican majority. But before this recount was ﬁnished the
electors had met and cast their votes for the Republican nominees.
The Returning Board of Louisiana, appointed by Gov. Pack—
ard, made up from the confused returns at their command a
Republican majority of 3,931. The Returning Board appointed
by McEnery, who claimed to be Governor, made up from the
same confused election returns a Democratic majority of 7,876.
The trouble in Oregon was not one of popular majority, which
was admittedly Republican, but was over the claim that one of
the three electors was a Federal ofﬁce-holder. The Democratic
Governor of the State therefore certiﬁed to two Republican
electors and one Democratic (Mr. Cronin). The Secretary of
State certiﬁed to the three Republican electors, he being the
legal canvassing ofﬁcer.
FOR T Y-FO UR T H CONGRESS — Second Session. — Met
December 4, 1876. The Speaker, Mr. Kerr, having died, Sam-
uel J.,Randall, Pa., was elected to that position. The disputed
Electoral count occupied almost the entire time of the session.
The inadequacy of all laws regulating the count was painfully
manifest. Both parties were ﬁrm. The situation was such that
a false step might have led to an outbreak. The Republicans
claimed that the President of the Senate had, under the law, the
sole authority to open and announce the returns in the presence
of the two Houses. _ The Democrats claimed that the two
Houses acting as a joint body could control the count under the
law. Some Democrats went so far as to say that the House
THE UNITED STATES. 485
alone could decide when an emergency had arrived in which it
was to elect a President.
Danger was avoided by the patriotism of prominent members
of Congress, of both parties, who after several conferences agreed
to report the Electoral Commission Act. It passed, and was
approved Jan. 29, 1877. The Senate vote for it was 47 to 17
against. Of this 47, 21 were Republicans and 26 Demo-
crats. Of this 17, 16 were Republicans and 1 Democrat. It
therefore had an almost unanimous Democratic support in the
Senate. The House was Democratic. It passed there by a vote
of 191 to 86. The act created an Electoral Commission, com-
posed of ﬁve Representatives, ﬁve Senators, and ﬁve Judges of
the Supreme Court, I 5 in all. Each of these bodies was to select
its representatives on the Commission. To this Commission
were referred the disputed returns. Its decision was to be ﬁnal
unless overruled by both Houses. The decisions of the Com-
mission on all the disputed returns were to the effect that the
electoral vote as certiﬁed and sent to the Speaker of the Senate
by the regularly constituted authorities in each State must be
accepted as conclusive and beyond investigation or question by
any authority outside of that State.* The ﬁnal count as thus
ascertained gave the Republican nominees 185 Electoral votes,
and the Democratic 184. Congress adjourned sine die, March 3,
1877. On March 4, Hayes and Wheeler were sworn into ofﬁce.
* A remarkable feature of this controversy was the fact that the Republicans
were standing on old~time Democratic ground and relying on rigid Democratic
doctrine. They were, for the time being, construing the Constitution strictly and
insisting on the right of the State to ascertain its own vote and certify and forward
it in its own way, all of which was to be conclusive on outside tribunals. The Dem-
ocrats on the other hand combated their old rigid interpretation theories by urging
that the Congress should reject the certiﬁcates from a State Returning Board.
Happily the political complexion of the two Houses, one Democratic, the other
Republican, prevented any successful appeal from the decisions of the Commission.
If bot/'1 Houses, under the terms of the act, could have agreed to upset any one or
the Commission’s decisions, then riot, if not civil war, must have ensued. But the
act was wisely framed with a view to the entire political situation.
486 POLITICAL HISTORY.
XXIII.
HAYES’ ADMINISTRATION.
March 4, 1877—March 3, I881.
RUTHERFORD B. HAYES, OHIO, President. WILLIAM A.
WHEELER, N. Y., Vice-President.
Congresses. Sessions.
1, October I 5, 1877-December 3, 1877. Extra Session.
FORTY-FIFTH CONGRESS. 2, December 3, 1877-June 20, 1878.
3, December 2, I878-March 3, 1879.
. I, March 18, 1879-]uly I, 1879. Extra Sessiori.
FORTY-SIXTH CONGRESS. 2, December I, 1879-]une 16, 1880.
3, December 6, 1880—March 3, 1881.
ELECTORAL VOTE.*

Republican. Democratic.
Basis of R.B.Hayes, w. A. Wheel- 's. J. Tll- T. A. Hen:
States. 131,425. Vote. Ohio. er, N. Y. den, N.Y. dricks, Ind.
Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10 . . IO IO
Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 . . . . 6 6
California . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 6 6 6 . .
Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 3 3 3 . . . .
Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 . . . . 6 6
Delaware.............' I 3 . .. 3 3
Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 4 4 4 _ . . . .
Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 II .. .. I! 11
Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 . 21 21 ‘ 21 i . . ..
Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . .. I3 15 .. .. 15 15
Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 II II II 4 .
Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 5 5 .
Kentucky............. 10 12 .. .. 12 12
Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8 8 - 8 . .
Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 7 7 .
Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8 . . . . 8 8
Massachusetts . . . . . . . . I I I 3 I 3 I 3 . .
Michigan............. 9 II II II ..
Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 5 5 . .
Mississippi............ 6 8 .. .. 8 . 8
Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . I3 15 .. I5 15
Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . I 3 3 3 . .
Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. I 3 3 3
New Hampshire . . . . . . 3 5 5 5 . .
Newjersey.... 7 9' .. 9 9‘
New York . . . . . . . . . .. 33 35 35 35
North Carolina.. . . . . . . 8 10 . . . IO 10
Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 22 22 22 . . . .
* The popular vote was: Hayes, 4,033,950—‘21 States; Tilden, 4,284,885—I7
States; Greenback, Cooper, 81,740; Prohibition, Smith, 9,522 ; American, 539;
scattering, 14,715.

R
PRESIDENTS FROM 1869 TO 1884.
E ‘ ' ' “a v " .
rillll||llll|I|lllllllllIllllllll|lllIll|IIll|llllll|lll|l|llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll|lllllIllIllllllllllllllllHll]llllllllllllllllllllllIlllllIllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
487
llllllllllllF.
488 POLITICAL HISTORY.
Eleeioml Vote—Continued.

Republican. Democratic.
Basis of R. B. Hayes, W.A. Wheel: rsii Til- T. A. Hen‘
States. 131,425. Vote. Ohio. er, N. Y. den, N.Y. dricks, Ind.
Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 3 3 . . . .
Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . 27 29 29 29 . . . .
Rhode Island . . . . . . . . 2 4 4 4 . . . .
South Carolina.. . . . . .. 5 7 7 7 . . . .
Tennessee. . . . . . . . . .. 10 12 . . . . 12 12
Texas................. 6 8 .. .. 8 8
Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 5 5 . . . .
Vii-ginia............. 9 11 .. 11 11
West Virginia . . . . . . . . 3 5 . . . . 5 5
Wisconsin............ 8 ‘IO 10 IO .. .-
Totals. . . . . . . . . . . . .293 369 185 185 I84 184
THE CABINET.
Secretary of State . . . . . . . . . . . .William M. Evarts, N. Y.
Secretary of Treasury . . . . . . . . .John Sherman, Ohio.
Secretary of War . . . . . . . . . . . .Geo. W. McCrary, Iowa. .
Secretary of Navy . . . . . . . . . . . .Richard W. Thompson, Ind.
Secretary of Interior . . . . . . . . . .Carl Schurz, Mo.
Attorney-General . . . . . . . . . . . . .Charles Devens, Mass.
Postmaster-General . . . . . . . . . . .David M. Key, Tenn.
-POLI T 1 CAL SI T UA TI ON.—-The President’s inaugural was
paciﬁc. He visited the South, and the tone of his speeches there
was very conciliatory. There was a general departure from Re—
publican ideas respecting the questions which had disturbed the
reconstructed States. They were given over to such rule as
seemed inevitable fora long time, in case the Federal troops were
withdrawn. While the President’s conservatism gave rise to
criticism among his party friends, very many thought it proper
that he should pursue an intermediate political course in view
of the circumstances surrounding his election and the seeming
desire for a breathingspell after the excitement attending the
electoral count. .
FOR T Y-FIFT H C ON CHESS—Extra Session—Called Oct.
15', 1877. This Congress, like the Forty-fourth, was Democratic
in the House, and Republican in the Senate. The latter body
stood 38 Republicans; 37 Democrats; 1 Independent. The
House stood 156 Democrats, and 136 Republicans. The House
organized by re-electing Samuel J. Randall, Pa., Speaker. Party
lines were strictly drawn over a determined effort of the Demo-
crats to repeal the Resumption Act. The platform of 1880

JOHN SHERMAN.
489
490 POLITICAL HISTORY.
pledged the party to repeal. Their measure failed in the Senate.
The same effort was made in the ﬁrst regular session of this
(Forty—ﬁfth) Congress, with no better success. Congress-ad-
journed, Dec. 3, 1877.
FORTIZFIFTH CONGRESS—First Regular Sessionk—Met
Dec. 3, 1877. From this time on ﬁnancial legislation largely
occupied the respective sessions. Government income was
ample for every purpose. The national credit was high. Efforts
to defeat resumption, ﬁxed for 1879, were made by the Demo-
crats this session, but failed owing to the Republican majority
in the Senate. The era of refunding was beginning, and was to
be carried on till it became evident that the entire public debt -
could be turned into bonds bearing no more than three per cent.
interest, if such an end should prove desirable. As a conse-
quence bitter partyism was not indulged in'as during slavery
times and the period of reconstruction, though- even these
ﬁnancial and business topics could not altogether escape modest
party colorings when an advantage was likely to accrue.
An act to remonetize silver and coin $2,000,000 (Bland) a
month was passed and received the President’s veto, Feb. 28,
1878. It was passed over the veto. . This legislation was not
of any party, but was thought to be in the interest of the Paciﬁc
or mining States. On May 28, 1878, the Bankrupt Act was so
amended as to virtually work its repeal. The River and Har-
’ bor Bill of this session ‘(April 2 3, 1878) appropriated the large
sum of $8,000,000 for this class of coast and internal improve- .-
ments. This was extraordinary, not only on ‘account of the
sum involved, but because it came from a Democratic House
which had started on an economic career, and further because
the old Democratic constitutional objections to appropriations
of this kind were no longer heard. Both ‘parties were now fully
committed to appropriations of this character, and all for the
worse unless a check be provided, which, as we shall see, soon
came in- the shape of executive veto. Congress adjourned, june
20,1878.
FORT Y-FIFT H CONGRESS—Second Regular Session.—
Met Dec. 2,1878. The President’s message referred with favor
.. . 4.2...-
a. . . a I.
0

WM. M. EVA RTS.
. a ._
//.u\u\ \
JOSEPH R. HAWLEY.

GEORGE H. PENDLETON. DANIEL W. VOORHEES.
491
492 POLITICAL HISTORY CF
to the process of funding now rapidly and successfully going on,
by which so many millions were being saved in annual interest.
It was much ﬁrmer as to the Southern situation than his former
message, and the party became assured of his fealty, began to
harmonize in the several States and to recover from what, at one
time, seemed to be permanent factional estrangement.
An important, though not strictly party measure, was the
Anti-Chinese bill, which was vetoed by the President as being
against the Burlingame Treaty. It was passed over the veto,
Feb. 22, 1879. It prohibited the immigration of Chinese as
laborers.
The Republicans in the House made a determined effort to
stop the coinage of Bland dollars. Their measure was defeated
by an almost solid Democratic vote.
The great bone of party contention was the old Republican
measures which provided for keeping peace at the polls in the
respective States during Congressional elections. These bills
authorized the appointment of United States Marshals, and even
the calling out of troops in case of danger. The Democrats
used their power over the Appropriation bill of this session, to
work their repeal, by withholding pay for Marshals and for the
army, except on the condition that troops should never be used
at elections. Two Army Appropriation bills were vetoed by the
President on the ground that Congress could not deprive the
Executive of the power to keep the peace, and that judicious use
of troops was still necessary to suppress riotous demonstrations
in certain sections. The end of the session came before an ap-
propriation was made for the army. Congress adjourned sine
die, March 3, 1879. '
FORT Y-SIX T H CONGRESS ——Extra Session—Called
March 18, 1879, to pass the Army Appropriation bill which the
Forty-ﬁfth Congress failed to do. Now both Houses were
Democratic. The Senate contained, Democrats, 42; Republi-
cans, 3 3; Independent, 1. The House, Democrats, 148; Re’
publicans, 130; Greenbackers or Nationals, 15.
This was a stormy session. The Democrats had their way in
‘both Houses. They passed the Army Appropriation bill, with
' THE UNITED STATES. 493
the same “ riders” as before, providing pay for the troops in
case they were not used for preserving peace at the polls. The
excitement had the effect of uniting the Republicans and stimu-
lating the administration, who regarded the withholding of ap-
propriations as an attempt to coerce the Executive branch by
starving the government. The President vetoed the bill, and
thus stated his position: “The army and navy are established
by the Constitution. Their duty is clearly deﬁned and their
support provided for by law. The money required for this pur-
pose is now in the Treasury. It was not the intention of the
framers of the Constitution that any single branch of the gov-
ernment should have the power to dictate conditions upon which
this money should be applied to the purpose for which it was
collected.” The bill could not be passed over the veto. The
offensive riders were therefore removed and the bill, as amended,
passed.
The Republicans made an ineffectual effort to pass a measure
for insuring peace at Congressional elections by imposing a pen~
alty on carrying ﬁre-arms or concealed weapons. The Demo-
crats in the House passed the Warner Silver bill providing for
the unlimited coinage of silver dollars. The members of their
party in the Senate, under the lead of Bayard, refused to recog—
nize it. Congress adjourned, July I, 1879.
FOR T Y-SIX T H CONGRESS—First Regular Session.—
Met Dec. I, 1879. ‘The summer had witnessed an exodus of
the colored population of the South, and a movement toward
kinder localities. It gave rise to much discussion in the journals
of all sections, and those of the South advised more liberal
treatment of the blacks in matters of education, labor contracts,
etc. The President’s message was the ﬁrmest and ablest he had
yet presented. It spoke of the success of resumption and the
great saving thereby effected; took decided ground against fur~
ther coinage of the Bland dollar; urged the necessity of organ-
izing an effective Civil Service Reform Commission, and favored
the retirement of the Legal Tender notes.
The Democrats again brought up their measure to prevent the
use of the army to keep the peace at the polls. After receiving
494 POLITICAL HISTORY.
what was known as the Garﬁeld amendment to the effect that
the “ bill should not be construed so as to prevent the Constitu-
tional use of the army to suppress domestic violence in a State,”
it was passed and approved.
The same offensive “riders” were, however, attached to the
Army Appropriation bill, which was again vetoed. Before the
end of the session the Democrats modiﬁed their hostility to the
Congressional Election Law, owing to a decision of the Supreme
Court afﬁrming its constitutionality. A long discussion was had
on a bill to regulate the electoral count. A bill to this effect
had been in many previous Congresses. Imperative as some
such legislation seemed, nothing came of it. The River and
Harbor bill of the session appropriated $9,000,000. Congress
adjourned, june 16, 1880.
ELEC T [ ON OF 1880.—The Republican National Conven-
tion met at Chicago, june 5, 1880. There was much excitement
in the party ranks over the candidacy of ex-President Grant,
whose friends were urging him for a third, but not consecutive,
term. After 36 ballots, james A. Garﬁeld, Ohio, was nominated
for President, and Chester A. Arthur, N. Y., for Vice-President.
The platform recited, as Republican party history, the suppression
of rebellion, reconstruction of the Union, manumission of 4,000,000
slaves, raising of a paper currency from 38 per cent. to par, pay-
ment in coin of all national obligations, raising of government
credit from‘ where 6 per cent. bonds sold at 86 to where 4 per
cent. bonds sold at par, increase of railways from 31,000 miles in
1860 to 82,000 in 1879, increase of foreign trade from $700,000,-
000 to $I,I 50,000,000, and of exports from $20,000,000 less than
our imports in 1860 to $264,000,000 more than our imports in
1880, revival of depressed industries. (2) Pledge of similar
action for the future; to pay soldiers’ pensions; to further re-
duce the debt, to encourage commerce. (3) The Constitution
the supreme law; boundary between reserved and delegated
powers to be determined by the nation, not by the States. (4)
Favored popular education ; no appropriation of school funds to
sectarian uses. (5) Protective duties; no land grants to corpora-
tions; extinction of polygamy; internal improvement; obliga-

/./.
¢ 2
, $1.
. 2%.’.
. L //
”
i/V/Qﬁ/
.ﬂ/
4
w
. 2.2
//
//.//
,w. 72/...”
.7
/
/
4
/ . ,v
/
/
2%
.2/
S, HANCOCK-
WINFIELD

WM. R. MORRISON-
495
496 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
_ tion to soldiers and sailors. (6) Limitation of Chinese immigra—
tion; approval of Hayes’ administration; charges of corrupt
practices and vicious principles on the Democratic party; radical
civil service reform.
The National (Greenback) Convention met at Chicago June
9, 1880, and nominated James B. Weaver, Iowa, for President,
and E. Chambers, Texas, for Vice-President. The platform
adhered to the principle of a large legal tender currency ; opposi-
tion to refunding of the debt; abolition of national banks and
their currency; favored unlimited coinage of gold and silver;
enforcement of the eight hour law; opposed the immigration of
Chinese; land grants to actual settlers only; regulation of inter-
State commerce by Congress; a graduated income tax; no re-
striction on suffrage; no bondholders’ government; no section-
alism. ‘
The Prohibition Reform Party met in National Convention at
Cleveland, June 17, 1880, and nominated for President Neal
Dow, Me., and for Vice-President H. A. Thompson, Ohio. A
very lengthy platform took the usual ground against trafﬁc in
intoxicants and arraigned both political parties for shirking the
question.
The Democratic Party met in National Convention at Cincin-
nati, June 22, 1880, and nominated Winﬁeld S. Hancock, N. Y.,
for President, and William H. English, Ind., for Vice-President.
The platform (I) pledged the party to Democratic traditions and
doctrines. (2) Opposed centralization and sumptuary laws;
favored separation of church and State; fostered common schools.
(3) Home rule; honest money; maintenance of public credit;
“tariff for revenue only;” subordination of military to civil
authority; reform of civil service. (4) Afree ballot. (5) De—
nunciation of Hayes’ administration and Republican party. (6)
Eulogy on Tilden. (7) Free ships; no Chinese immigrants;
public land for actual settlers; protection of laboring man
against “ cormorant and commune; ” congratulations over work
of the Democratic Congress.
The campaign opened disastrously for the Republicans, Maine
THE UNITED STATES. 497
having gone Democratic, or Coalition, in September. The loss
of Indiana to the Democrats in October threw the advantage to
the Republican side. The Democrats felt, as the canvas ad-
vanced, the weight of _their commitment to “ a tariff for revenue
only,” a Protective Tariff being the issue directly pushed by the
Republicans. “The Morey letter,” circulated for the purpose
of injuring Garﬁeld in the Paciﬁc States, was a conspicuous cam-
paign sensation. The impression that it was a malicious invention
served to deaden its effect, if not to turn it to the disadvantage
of the Democrats. The result in November was favorable to the
Republicans. The Congressional elections were also favorable
to that party, reversing the Democratic majority.
FORTY-SIXTH CONGRESS—Second Session—Met Dec.
6, I880. The President’s message was a strong paper. It took
high ground in. favor of the inviolability of the Constitutional
amendments; favored an appropriation to perfect a civil service
code; opposed political assessments; asked that polygamy be
punished by excluding those who practiced it from the jury box;
and that a silver dollar be coined equal in value to the gold dol-
lar. An effort was made to pass a law regulating the electoral
count. It failed as usual. The count in February (9th) showed
214 votes for Garﬁeld and Arthur, and I 5 5 for Hancock and
English. Congress adjourned sz'ne die, March 3, 1881. On
March 4 Garﬁeld and Arthur were sworn into ofﬁce.
XXIV.
GARFIELD’S AND ARTHUR’S ADMINISTRATION.
March 4, ISSI—March 3, 1885.
JAMES A. GARFIELD, OHIO, President. CHESTER A. ARTHUR,
N. Y., Vice-President.
Congresses. Sessions.
FORTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS. 1’ Decembﬂ' 5, 1331—August 3, I332-
2, December 4, 1882-March 3, 1883.
I, December 3, 1883-]uly 7, I884.
FORTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS. { 2, December I, 1334_Mar¢h 3, 1885.
32
498 POLITICAL HISTORY.
ELECTORAL VOTE.*

Republican. Democrat.
james A. Chester; V'Vin'ﬁeld S. William
Basis of Garﬁeld, Arthur, Hancock, English,
80.168. 131,425. Vote. Ohio. N. Y. N. Y. Ind.
Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Io .. .. 10 10
Arkansas.............. 4 6 .. 6 6
California . . . . . . . . ..... 4 6 l 1 5 5
Colorado . . . . . I 3 3 2 .. ..
Connecticut........... 4 6 6 .. o-o
Delaware....... . . . . .. I 3 .. .. 3 3
Florida . . . . . 2 4 .. .. 4 4
Georgia....... . . . . 9 11 .. .. 11 I!
Illinois................19 21 21 21 .. ..
Indiana..............13 15 I5 15 .. ..
Iowa.......... . . . . . .. 9 11 11 11 .. ..
Kansas.....s......... 3 5 5 5 .. ..
Kentucky....... . . . . .. 10 12 .. .. 12 .12
. . . . .. 6 8 .. .. 8 8
Maine........... . . . . .. 5 7 7 7 .. .
Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 8 .. .. 8 8
Massachusetts.......... 11 13 I3 . 13 .. ..
Michigan.............. 9 II 11 11 .. ..
Minnesota . . . . . 3 5 5 5 .. ..
Mississippi. . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8 . . . . 8 8
Missouri...... . . . . . . .. 13 I5 .. .. 15 15
Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 3 3 3 .. ..
Nevada . . . . . . . I 3 .. .. 3 3
NewHampshire........ 3 5 5 5 .. ..
New]ersey............ 7 9 .. .. 9 9
New York.._ . . . . . . . . .. 33 35 35 35 .. ..
North Carolina . . . . . . . . 8 10 . . . . 10 ' 10
Ohio . . . . . . 20 22 22 22 . ..
Oregon............... 1 3 3 3 .. ..
Pennsylvania........... 27 29 29 29 .. ..
Rhode Island.......... 2 4 4 4 .. ..
South Carolina... 5 7 .. .. 7 7
Tennessee;...... . . . . .. to 12 .. .. 12 12
Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 8 .. .. 8 8
Vermont............... 3 5 5 5 .. ..
Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 II . . . . 11 11
West Virginia . . . . . . . . .. 3 5 . . . . 5 5
Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10 IO 10 . . . .
Totals... . . . . . . 2% 36-9 214 214 T5? 155
THE CABINEZ
Secretary of State. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .james G. Blaine, Me.
Secretary of Treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . .William Windom, Minn.
Secretary of War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Robert T. Lincoln, Ill.
Secretary of Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .W. H. Hunt, La.
Secretary of Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Samuel J. Kirkwood, Iowa.
Attomey~General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wayne McVeagh, Pa.
Postmaster-General.. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .Thomas L. James, N. Y.
* The popular vote was, Garﬁeld, 4,449,053—19 States; Democrat, Hancock,
4,442,035—19 States; Greenback, Weaver, 308,578 ; Prohibition, 10,305 ; Ameri-
can, 707; scattering, 989.
.1.
'I'
A.
4
m
.e.
/
/U
ROBERT T.IJNCOLN.

JAMEs c. BLAINE.
HQ
500 POLITICAL HISTORY or
POLITICAL SI T UA T I ON—The conservatism of the Hayes‘
administration, always manifested save on extraordinary occa-
sions, had softened party asperities and allayed sectional feeling.
It had given play to two currents within the Republican party,
the one conservative, like the administration, the other radical. _
The new administration had the support of both during the cam-
paign. It therefore opened auspiciously. The. inaugural was
an able, patriotic paper, in which the President took a high stand
on- the question of suffrage, education, morals, public faith and
civil service reform. _
The Senate sitting in extra session conﬁrmed the Cabinet
ofﬁcers, but the 'minor appointments, especially those for New
York State, gave rise to much feeling, which ended in the resig-
nation of the Senators from that State, May 17, 1881. This
was the date of a disastrous division in the Republican party
which led to the “ tidal waves” of opposition in 1882-83. The
conservative sentiment of the party strove to purify and popular-
ize the methods of party management. It took the shape of
“ Independent ” revolt in many States. In others it administered
quiet rebuke to those it was pleased to designate as “Bosses”
by refraining from voting.
THE ASSASSINATION—The President was shot at the
Baltimore and Potomac depot, Washington, on July 2, 1881, '
at 9.20 A. M., by Charles J. Guiteau, a persistent seeker of po-
litical places far beyond his ability to ﬁll, and a maliciously dis-
posed, cowardly semi-idiot, in whom disappointment had stirred
natural diabolism to the point of assassination. The President
rallied from the effects of the shot, lingered hopefully for a long
time, but ﬁnally died at Elberon, N. J., at 10.35 P. M., Sept. 19,
1881,, amid the tears of a nation and the sympathies of a world‘.
THE NEW ADMINISTRATION—The Cabinet at once
telegraphed Vice-President Arthur of the death of President
Garﬁeld and suggested that he take the oath of ofﬁce. He did
so at 2.15 A. M., Sept. 20, 1881, at New York city, before Judge
Brady; and again at Washington, Sept. 22, at 12 M., before the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
THE UNITED STATES. ' 501
T HE CABINET—He did not reorganize his Cabinet at once,
but when the changes were complete it stood as follows:
Secretary of State . . . . . . . .Fred. T. Frelinghuysen, N. ].
Secretary of Treasury. . . ..Charles Folger, N. Y.
Secretary of War . . . . . . . .Robert T. Lincoln, Ill., continued.
Secretary of Navy . . . . . . . .William E. Chandler, N. H.
Secretary of Interior. . . ...Henry M. Teller, Col.
Attorney-General . . . . . . . .Benjamin Harris Brewster, Pa.
Postmaster-General . . . . . . . Timothy O. Howe, Wis.
FORT Y-SE VENT H C ON GRESS—First Session.-——Met De-
cember 5, I881. The Republican party had control of the House,
there being Republicans, 150; Democrats, I 31 ; Nationals, 10; Re—
adjusters, 2. The Senate stood Republicans, 37; Democrats,
37; Independent, 1; Readjuster, I.* The House organized by
electing Warren B. Keifer, Ohio, Speaker. A conspicuous
measure of this session was the Edmunds Polygamy bill, which
was not a party measure, but singularly enough met with only
Democratic opposition. It became ﬁnal March 23, 1882. Its
gist was the disfranchisement of those practising polygamy.
On .May 15, 1882, the bill to create a Tariff Commission was
signed. This Commission sat at various places during the
summer and fall. The Tariff act of the next session was based
on their report. An amended anti-Chinese bill was passed, pro-
hibiting their immigration for a period of twenty years. Ques-
tions of banking and refunding took up a great part of the ses-
sion. It was now an easy matter to place government bonds
bearing interest as low as 3 per cent. An immense appropriation
was made for River and Harbor purposes. It was vetoed by the
President, but was passed over the veto by a vote of 41 to 16 in
the Senate, and 122 to 59 in the House, showing that both par-
ties were of the same spirit respecting this question of Internal
Improvement. The veto took the ground that this species of
legislation, as exempliﬁed by this particular bill, had passed
beyond the ‘only warrant to be found for it, viz.: the authority
" to provide for the common defence and general welfare,” and
* This was Senator Mahone, Va., who stood at the head of a State party called
“ Readjusters ” of the State debt.
502 ' POLITICAL HISTORY.
had become the means by which money was taken for small
streams and purely local improvements, with which the people
at large had no concern and through which they could receive
no beneﬁt.* Feb. 25, 1882, an apportionment bill passed. It
ﬁxed the number of Representatives, under the census of 1870,
at 325. Congress adjourned, Aug. 8, 1882.
FORT Y-SE VENT H CON GRESS—Second Session—Met
December 4, 1882. This Congress seemed to be a point at
which an immense amount of previously prepared and debated
work culminated. It was proliﬁc of‘ important and far-reaching
measures, many of them political but most of them of general
moment. The Tariff Commission had made its report and both
Houses had it under discussion. The outcrop was the Tariff
Act of March 3, 1883, which lowered duties on most of the lead
ing imports, but whose main feature was to equalize rates and
abolish the incongruities of existing Tariff laws. It cannot be
said that the act was a success in this respect. Interests‘ to be
consulted were so conﬂicting that it was impossible to avoid
crudities and hardships. Demand for lighter duties on raw ma-
terials made by manufacturing sections worked to the injury of
producing sections, and vice versa. The act was in the nature
of a compromise. It served to show, however, that the entire
country had come to regard this class of legislation as vital. The
act went into operation as to sugar and molasses on the Ist
of June, 1883; as to its other provisions on the Ist of July,
1883.
The Civil Service Reform Bill passed at this session. It was
introduced in the Senate by Geo. H. Pendleton, Democrat, of
Ohio, and authorized a commission to devise a plan of civil ser-
vice and put it in operation. Though this bill was introduced
by a Democrat and ably sustained by him, the Democrats were
its active opponents. Its ﬁnal passage in both Houses was by
* The rapid growth of this class of appropriations after they began to receive the
favor of both parties appears thus: 1870, $3,975,900; 1875, $6,648,517; 1880,
$8,976,500; 1881, $11,451,000; 1882, $18,743,875, the amount in vetoed bill.
Since the. beginning of the government there has been expended in the respective
States for river and harbor improvements the total sum of $108,796,401.

\..
\.
\s
\ .
\\
\.
BOSCOE CON KL ING-

Copyright, 1888
By P. W. Zuzana A’ 05
503
504 POLITICAL HISTORY.
an almost solid Republican vote against an almost solid Demo -
cratic opposition.*
An act of March 3, 1883, reduced letter postage to two cents
for each half ounce and authorized a Postal note whose value
should not exceed ﬁve dollars. Large reductions were made in
Internal taxes. Congress adjourned sine die, March 3, 1883.
FORT Y-EI GH T H C ON GRESS—First Session—Met De-
cember 3, 1883. The political “ tidal wave ” of 1882, partially
repeated in 1883, had been very disastrous to 'the Republican
party. They lost governors and legislators in many‘ of their
strongest States, and the National House of Representatives was
Democratic. The Senate stood, Republicans, 40, to Democrats,
36. The House was composed of Democrats, 195 ; Republicans,
126; Independent, 1; vacancies, 3. Much interest was felt in
the election of a Speaker. The Democrats, as a party,-seemed
to be composed of two wings, one in favor of quiet respecting
existing Tariff legislation, the other in favor of reduced duties.
Mr. Carlisle, Ky., exponent of the latter idea, became Speaker.
The President’s message recommended closer commercial and
political relations with Mexico; an extension of our trade
interests to South America and to the new Congo country;
called attention to the national surplus of $132,874,44421, and
recommended reduced tariff and internal taxation, with a partial
appropriation of the surplus to the building of a navy; advised
the redemption and recoinage of the trade dollars; a settlement
of the Mormon question by repeal of the Territorial act and es-
tablishment of a government through a Commission; reduction '
of postal rates in cities to one cent for every half ounce; pro-
visions for Inter-State trafﬁc or commerce; new legislation re-
specting civil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The
country regarded the paper as plain, practical, business-like
and assuring.
But the Congress was in no mood to embark upon legislation
recommended by President Arthur. TheRepublicans were cast
*Politicians attributed the defeat of Senator Pendleton for re-election to the Sen-
ate by the Democratic Legislature of Ohio, in January, 1884, to his advocacy of
this bill.
THE UNITED STATES. 605
down by their recent reverses, while the Democrats were too
new to the situation to hastily commit themselves to measures
which might endanger their supremacy. They elaborated a
scheme for What was called “ a horizontal reduction of the tariff,”
but it was picked to pieces by the protectionists in their own
party, and ﬁnally defeated by the snap-short method of a motion
to strike out its enacting clause.
The same result attended their efforts to reduce the surplus in
the Treasury by repeal of internal taxation, though in this in-
stance the general party judgment as to the necessity of such
repeal seems to have been thwarted by a desire not to interfere
with the internal tax on whiskey, and by the fear that any re-
duction of internal taxation would give the Republicans and
protection Democrats an excuse for maintaining high protective
duties on imports.
A bill to regulate the counting of the electoral vote passed the
Senate, and also the House in an amended form. It fell to the
ground in a Committee of Conference. The Blair Educational
Bill passed the Senate but was defeated in the House. It appro-
priated $15,000,000 the ﬁrst year to purposes of education, to be
divided among the States in proportion to the number of illite-
rates therein; and then one million less each year for ten years.
It was designed to assist the Southern States.
The end of the session found the political situation compara—
tively unchanged, and this was perhaps preferable to both parties.
If nothing of moment had been accomplished, mistakes had, at
least, been avoided, provided inactivity be not a mistake in politics.
One thing was not forgotten, that was a good round sum ($13,-
899,700) covered into the River and Harbor Bill, for the purpose
of exalting sleepy and unpretentious waterways into navigable
arteries of trade. Congress adjourned July 7, 1884.
ELECTION OF 1884.—The Republican National Conven-
tion met at Chicago on Tuesday, June 3, 1884. It was the
Eighth National Convention in the history of the party and was
composed of 820 delegates. The candidates placed in nomina-
tion were James G. Blaine, Me.; Chester A. Arthur, N. Y.; John
Sherman, O.; Geo. F. Edmunds, Vt.; John A. Logan, 111.; Joseph
506 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
R. Hawley, Conn. Each of the candidates had a respectable
following, but the nomination of James G. Blaine had been fore-
shadowed by a popular wave which was running swiftest and
highest at the moment the Convention met, and which nothing
could stem. The party seemed to demand as a candidate a man
of Mr. Blaine’s brilliant and aggressive parts, and this quite as
much for the purpose of dispelling the gloom occasioned by the
local political disasters of 1882—8 3 as in obedience to a wish to
see him vindicated by a nomination which had been, as his ad-
mirers thought, unnecessarily withheld by prior conventions.
He received the party nomination on the fourth ballot, and it
was generally agreeable to the rank and ﬁle, but distasteful to a
small faction who had clung to the fortunes of Mr. Edmunds, on
the plea of conservative statesmanship, pure political methods
' I and practical reforms. These did not cease their antagonism
during the entire campaign, and they came to be known as
“Mugwumps.” General john A.‘ Logan, of Illinois, was made
the nominee for Vice-President.
The platform commended the party to the people for its
achievements; lamented the death of President Garﬁeld; en-
dorsed President Arthur’s administration; favored a tariff for
protection to industry; denounced the Democrats for failing to
reduce the surplus by removing internal taxation, for attempting
to correct the tariff by the indiscriminate process of “ horizontal
reduction,” and for their hostility to the wool-growing interests;
urged an international standard for gold and silver; suggested
an act to regulate inter-state commerce; favored international
arbitration as a substitute for war ; denounced the importation of
contract labor; declared in favor of civil service reform; of keep-
ing the public land for actual settlers; of liberal pensions for sol-
diers; of an extended navy; denounced Polygamy; asserted the
right of the United States to insist upon a free ballot and full
count in the Southern States; and passed its pledge to secure to
all persons their full political rights.
The Democratic party met in National Convention at Chicago
on july 8, 1884, in the same hall used by the Republicans a
rrtpnth before. The Convention numbered 820 members, two-

p
my’ I" fall/4711,
gif’ﬂftzfj ''
‘3; I
,. . ‘
i . _._\~ 3333*‘:
\~"“\‘\‘\\\u
~.__\.‘.'_\\\\\
‘ a \'
‘ ~ a
\‘.‘Q \‘1‘ ‘ ‘
\ .l\
‘:‘Q \ \X}
M
-\§%§\
\.\\ :1 \ ‘ \
\‘~\~'\\‘\ x
4/
>
{r
I
\\


117 ~/’
11%‘
.I , \ ‘ ‘I
/ j} \‘I '1!)
v V‘ \ \ \ﬂ
4 (jam 1?
‘s1 ’ /
JJIJI’JIJ ‘I
V
"II!|""
!I""""".
!','u||')-I"'- "-""-...
B. K. BRUCE. FRED DOUGLASS.
) 117/ y/
507
508 * POLITICAL HISTORY OF
thirds of which were required to make a choice. The names of
T. F. Bayard, Del., Stephen Grover Cleveland, N. Y., Jos. E.
McDonald, Ind., Jno. G. Carlisle, Ky., Allen G. Thurman, Ohio,
S. J. Randall, Penna, and George E. Hoadly, Ohio, were placed
in nomination. ‘ ‘ ,
Grover Cleveland, of New York, was nominated as candidate
for President on the second ballot. Thomas A. Hendricks, of
Indiana, was nominated as Vice-President. Though the Tammany
Hall leaders were bitterly opposed to Mr. Cleveland’s nomina—
tion, and though he was unknown to the older Democracy, his
nomination was regarded as a master political stroke on the part
of the Convention. He had been elected Governor of New York
State over Chas. J. Folger, President Aithur’s Secretary of the
Treasury, by an unprecedented majority; was a favorite with the
younger Democracy, and had given a plain, sturdy administra—
tion without much reference to party behests. The‘ fact that
New York was a pivotal State in the campaign, and that the
Republican element which was to oppose Mr. Blaine not only
resided there most largely but had long before expressed its
favoritism for Mr. Cleveland, greatly added to his availability.
Whatever may have been the sentiment respecting his ability as
a statesman or even his desire to serve the leaders of his party,
the dissatisﬁed elements soon closed about him, and it became
apparent to all that, by his freedom from entanglements and
newness to situations, he was stronger than his party.
The platform announced that “the fundamental principles of
Democracy, approved by the people, remain the best and only
security for free government;” “the preservation of personal
rights, equality of all citizens before the law, reserved rights of
the States, and supremacy of the Federal .Government within the
limits of the Constitution, will ever form the true basis of liberty; ” .
that-the government should not always be controlled .by one
political party; that a change is now demanded; that the Repub—
lican party, as to principle, is a reminiscence; as to practice, an
organization for enriching those who control its machinery; that
it has nominated a ticket against which the independent portion
of its members are in revolt; that the will of the people in favor
THE UNITED STATES. 509
of change was defeated in 1876 by fraud and in 1880 by lavish
use of money; that the Republican party has squandered mil-
lions on a navy and given away the public lands to railroads and
non-settlers; that said party does not keep its pledges as to free
institutions, in favor of American workingmen, pensions for S01-
diers, and protection to American manufactures; that the Demo-
cratic party is pledged to revise the tariff in a spirit of fairness to
all interests, and denounces the existing tariff and the internal
revenue tax; that the circulating medium should be gold and
silver, or money convertible into same; that the government
should secure equal rights to all citizens; opposes sumptuary
laws; favors civil service reform, separation of church and state,
diffusion of education by common schools, the prevention of
monopoly; favors the keeping of public lands for actual settlers,
and all legislation tending to advance labor; favors the protec-
tion of persons and property of American citizens in foreign
lands; an American policy which shall restore American com-
merce; laments the fact that S. J. Tilden refuses to be again a
candidate.
The Prohibition National Convention met at Pittsburgh, Pa.,
July 23, 1888, and nominated Ex-Gov. John P. St. John, Kansas,
for President, and Hon. Wm. Daniel, Md, for Vice-President. The
platform set forth that: Laws must be made in accordance with
divine will; National and State laws regulating manufacture,
supply and sale of alcoholic beverages must be repealed, as
sources of evil; both political parties compete for the liquor vote,
and are a source of danger; reform must be introduced into
National methods by abolition of sinecures, by electing post-
masters, by making sobriety a test of ofﬁce-holding, by remov—
ing none from ofﬁce except when necessary; no government
revenue from liquor and tobacco, but only from customs’ duties
judiciously levied so as to protect labor; public lands only for
private homes; all money, coin and paper, to be a legal tender;
care and support for Union soldiers and their widows; no per-
sons or peoples to be excluded from citizenship; drink reform
to be brought about by Congress excluding it from the Terri-
tories and providing a Constitutional amendment prohibiting it
510 _ POLITICAL HISTORY 0F
and Polygamy in the land ; invitation to all laborers, women and
moralists to support the party; civil and political equality for
the sexes; change of name from “ Prohibition Home Protection
Party” to “ Prohibition Party.”
On May 14, 1884, a National Convention of Anti-Monopolists
met at Chicago and nominated for President General B. F. Butler,
Mass. They left the choice of a candidate for Vice-President
open to their National Committee.
This Convention was followed, May 28, 1884, by the “ Green-
back” National Convention, at Chicago, which also nominated
General B. F. Butler for President and added the name of General
A. M. West, Miss, for Vice-President. This action blended the
Anti-Monopolists and Greenbackers and the combination was
‘expected to carry the labor vote of the country with it. The
“Greenback” platform demanded (1) Issue of legal tender notes
in sufﬁcient quantities to supply actual demands of trade and
commerce in accordance with increase of population; substitu-
tion of greenbacks for National bank notes; prompt payment of
public debt by use of money locked up in public Treasury. (2)
Demanded restoration of all public lands, moneys and railroads
given away to corporations with the sanction of both political
parties to the people. (3) All public lands must be reclaimed
and held for the use of the people. (4) Congress should pass an
inter-state Commerce hill. (5) Demanded the restoration of the
income tax in a graduated form. (6) The amelioration of the
labor of the country by passing sanitary laws, building industrial
establishments, abolishing convict labor, appointing inspectors
for mines and factories, reducing the hours of labor, fostering
educational institutions, and preventing child labor. (7) De-
nounced the importation of cheap convict labor. (8) Asked for
a Constitutional amendment reducing the length of term of U. S.
Senators. (9) Such rules for the government of Congress as
shall put all members on an equal footing. (10) A wise revision
of the tariff laws in the interest of labor, but expresses the be-
lief that plenty of money is the best solvent of the issues of labor
and taxation. (II) Inorder to test public sentiment, recom-
mends an amendment to Constitution in favor of female suffrage
THE UNITED STATES. 511
and stoppage of liquor traffic. (12) Pensions to all disabled sol--
diers of late war. (13) The Greenback Labor party is the only
National party. (14) Appeals for support of all good men.
The campaign opened with ﬁerce attacks by both the leading
parties on the private character of the opposing candidates.
These, however, soon spent their force, and left the Democrats
in the enviable position of a party whose candidate had no record
as a national legislator or politician, and who had risen to the
position of Governor of his State with the help of a large Repub-
lican contingent and by a majority of nearly 200,000 votes.
Their national platform was an instrument of generous promises
and pledges, and the idea was easily cultivated that “ change”
would not be‘ disastrous, but rather beneﬁcial. The Republicans
made a brilliant campaign, with their leader in the ﬁeld, and an
ardent advocate of the leading tenets of the party, especially
those of protection and a free ballot. The Western States were
' visited and, when found to be well in line, the rest of the cam-
paign was simple. The whole contest turned upon New York,
as already foreseen, and with the chances somewhat against the
Republicans. The Temperance ticket was pushed with full
energy in the State, and with the effect of subtracting largely
from the Republican strength. The Greenback Labor ticket
was pushed with equal energy, and with the effect of subtracting
from the Democratic strength. The advantage gained to the
Republicans in other States by their strong “Protection” atti-
tude and the personal magnetism of their leader was more than
discounted in New York by the fact that the “ Independents” in
their ranks were mostly free traders, and by the additional fact
that it was the home State of the Democratic candidate.
It was thought by the Republican managers that Mr. Blaine
could improve the situation in the State by the inspiration of his
presence. The experiment of a brief campaign tour was tried
with very favorable effects, till the night of the celebrated recep-
tion , tendered him by the united clergy of the metropolis, at
which Rev. Dr. Burchard delivered his celebrated “ Rum, Ro-
manism and Rebellion” speech. This fatal alliterative perora-
tion was ﬂashed over the country, without any explanation, and
512 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
occasioned a stampede of the followers of the Greenback Labor
ticket back to the Democratic fold. The result of this campaign
was the closest on record. The Democratic candidate carried
the one State necessary to his election by a plurality of only '
1,047 votes.
This was a political revolution the Country had hardly antici-
pated a few months before. It brought the Democrats into Na—
tional power for the ﬁrst time since 1861, a period of twenty-four
years and six administrations, and it placed them under a re-
sponsibility they had never before been called upon as a party
to meet, for progress had made immense strides since the days
of Buchanan; slavery had been abolished ; the doctrine of States’
Rights and Secession had been obliterated by “grim-visaged
war;” the hated national banking system of Jacksonian times
was now a majestic and unassailable fact, and many other of the
ancient Democratic principles and methods had fallen into des-
uetude or been modiﬁed beyond recognition by the ﬁres of
time.
FOR T Y-EI GH T H CONGRESS —- Second Session—Met
Dec. 1, 1884. President Arthur's Cabinet as remodeled stood
as follows:
Secretary of State . . . . . . . . . .Fred. T. Frelinghuysen, N. J.
_ Chas. J. Folger (died Sept. 5, 1884), N. Y.
Secretary of Treasury . . . .. Walter Q. Gresham (Sept. 24, 1884), Ind.
Hugh McCullough (Oct. 31, 1884), Ind.
Secretary of War . . . . . . . . . . . Robert T. Lincoln, Ill.
Secretary of Navy . . . . . .' . . . .William E. Chandler, N. H.
Secretary of Interior . . . . . . . .Henry M. Teller, Col.
Postmaster-General . . . . . . . . . .Frank Hatton, Iowa.
Attorney-General. . . . . . . . . Benjamin Harris Brewster, Pa.
The President’s Message was a compact and practical docu-
ment abounding in information and good advice, and making a
hopeful forecast of the future. As with all State papers of this
time, it urged the expediency of providing against excessive ac-
cumulation of money in the Treasury by lowering internal taxa-
tion. In both Houses of Congress an Inter-State Commerce bill
underwent discussion. A bill to prevent the importation of ‘'
foreign contract labor was passed. Party lines were closely,

WALTER Q. GRESHAM
513
514 THE UNITED STATES.
‘drawn on a bill to admit Dakota as a State. The Democrats


opposed and the Republicans favored the bill. Political serenity
was somewhat disturbed by a bill introduced by the Democrats
which suspended the act authorizing the coinage of 2,000,000
of Bland dollars per month. The bill was said to have been
introduced at the request of Mr. Cleveland, the newly-elected
President, and as an aid to his proposed policy. It was defeated
by the Democrats themselves. Congress adjourned by limita-
tion March 4, 1885, having failed to pass the usual River and
Harbor bill. On the same day Cleveland and Hendricks were
sworn into ofﬁce, and the Democratic party began its new lease
of power in National affairs. President Arthur retired to private
life, broken down in health and with the seeds of that disease in
his system which he was not to survive more than a year or two.
He had taken ofﬁce amid a storm of condemnation and with his
party torn by dissensions, but with a delicate sensibility, a digni-
ﬁed method, and calm procedure amid condemnation and cal-
umny, he disarmed enmity in his own party, solidiﬁed its broken
ranks, and left ofﬁce amid kindly and considerate feeling on the
part of his countrymen.


r .
» .
F. T. FRELINGHUYSEN. CHAS. FOLGER.

POLITICAL HISTORY. 515
XXV.
CLEVELAND’S ADMINISTRATION.
March 4, 188 5—-March 4, 1889.
GRovER CLEVELAND, N. Y., President. THOMAS A. HENDRICKS,
IND., Vice-President.
(Mr. Hendricks died November 25, I885.)
' JOHN SHERMAN, President pro tem. of Senate, acting Vice-President.
Congresses. Sessions.
1, December 7, 1885-August 5, 1886.
FORTY'NINTH CONGRESS‘ 2, December 6, 1886-March 4, 1886.
1, December 5, 1887.
FIFTIETH CONGRESS. 2, December 3, 1333_
ELECTORAL VOTE.*
L L


' , Democrat. I Re ublican.
States. Basis of Grover 05. A. James . John A.
154,325 Votes. Cleveland, N.Y, Hendricks, Ind. Blaine, Me. Logan, Ill.
Alabama . . . . . . . . . . 8 IO 10 Io . . . .
Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 7 7 . . . .
California . . . . . . . . . 6 8 . . . . 8 8
Colorado........... I 3 .. .. 3 3
Connecticut........ 4 6 6 6 .. ..
Delaware ‘ . . u ¢ a o Q a o I 3 3 3 o o o 0
Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 4 4 . . . .
Georgia . . . . . . . . . ..IO 12 12 12 ~ .. ..
Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . .20 22 . . . . 22 22
Indiana . . . . . . . . . . ..13 15 15 15 ..
Iowa...............11 13 .. 13 13
Kansas.... . . . . . . .. 7 9 .. 9 9
Kentucky.........ll 13 13 13 .. .
Louisiana...........-6 8 8 8 ..
Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 . . . 6 6
Maryland. . . . . . . . . . 6 8 8 8 . . .
Massachusetts. . . . . 12 I4 . . . . I4 14
Michigan . . . . . . . . . . 11 13 . . 13 13
Minnesota.......... 5 7 .. 7 7
Mississippi......... 7 9 9 9 .. ..
Missonri..........l4 16 16 I6 .. ..
Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 e . . 5 5
Nevada............. I 3 .. 3 3
New Hampshire . . . . 2 4 ~ . . . . 4 4
NewJersey......... 7 9 9 9 .. ..
New York . . . . . . . . .34 36 36 36 . . . .
* Popular vote—Cleveland, 4,91 1,017; States, 20; Blaine, 4,848,334; States, 18;
Butler, Greenback-Labor, 133,825 ; St. John, Prohibition, 151,809; Scattering,
11,362.
516 . POLITICAL HISTORY OF
Electoral Voile—Continued.

h Democrat. ‘ T Republican.
States. Basis of , Grover Thos. A. James G. John A.
154,325 Votes. Cleveland, N.Y. Hendricks, Ind. Blaine, Me. Logan, Ill.
North Carolina.. . . . 9 11 1 1 1 1 . . . .
Ohio....-......._...21 23 .. .. 23 23
Oregon............ 1 3 .. .. 3 3
Pennsylvania . . . . . . 28 30 . . . . 3O , 30
Rhode Island . . . . . . 2 4 . . . . 4 4
South Carolina. . . . . 7 9 9 9 . . . .
Tennessee . . . . . . . . . 10 12 12 12 . . .
Texas . . . . . . . . . . . ..11 I3 13 13 .. ..
Vermont . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 i . . . . . 4 4
Virginia . . . . . . . . . . .10 12 12 12 .
West Virginia.. . . . . 4 6 6 6 . . . .
Wisconsin......... 9 11 .. .. II 11
Totals. . . . . ...325 401 219 219 182 182
THE CABINET.
Secretary of State . . . . . . . . .Thomas F. Bayard, Del.
Secretary of Treasury . . . . . . .Daniel Manning, N. Y.
(Succeeded by Chas. S. Fairchild, N. Y., April 1, 1887.)
Secretary of War . . . . . . . . . .William C. Eridicott, Mass.
Secretary of Navy . . . . . . . . . .William C. Whitney, N. Y.
Secretary of Interior . . . . . . . .Lucius Q. C. Lamar, Miss.
(Succeeded by William F. Vilas, Wis., December 5, 1887.)
Attorney-General . . . . . . . . . .Augustus H. Garland, Ark.
Postmaster-General . . . . . . . . . .William F. Vilas, Wis.
(Succeeded by Don M. Dickinson, Mich., December 5, 1887.)
THE POLI T ICAL'SIT UAT ION—On coming into power
after a long retiracy of twenty-four years, the Democratic party
found practically a new country, but one at peace and in the en-
joyment of unbounded prosperity. The Arthur administration
had been clean, safe and elegant rather .than bold and strong.
Politically there was but little to ripple the surface of events, and
Mr. Cleveland came upon the scene with the best wishes of the
nation at his back, and with a prestige for independent thoughts
and conservative methods. He was younger than the ante-war
principles of his party, unshackled' by ancient political complica—
tions or previous national record, and could well afford to pro-
4 ceed cautiously with the work of his administration. He, and,
for that matter, his party, had everything to gain by an adminis-
tration of affairs which should embody wisdom and safety. He
THE UNITED STATES. 517
made his Cabinet selections without much regard to the wishes
of party leaders, and naturally gave the preference to his own
State, which secured two of the leading secretaryships.
The President’s inaugural was a brief paper, pledging close
observance of the Constitution and laws, advising the limitation
of public expenditure to the needs of the government, desiring
peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations—en-
tangling alliances with none; devotion to the doctrine that our
system of revenue should be so adjusted as to relieve the people
from unjust taxation and prevent the accumulation of a surplus
in the Treasury; care for the public domain and fair treatment
of the Indians; enforcement of the laws against polygamy and
the immigration of foreign servile classes; rigid execution of the
Civil Service laws on the principle that public ofﬁce is a public
trust.
The document was a plain, unimpassioned declaration of the
President’s views and hopes without attempt to commit his party to
anything new or startling, and it was well received by the country.
Any policy' shaped upon it and honestly adhered to must rather
continue in general terms the political ideas of his predecessors
than revolutionize them.
So the new administration came quietly into'power, and grad- .
ually set about to improve the months prior to the meeting of
the 49th Congress by ﬁtting itself to a policy and purpose. This
work would not prove exciting, for Mr. Cleveland was not re-
garded as a man of creative intellect, original force or venture-
some disposition. He owed much to what was odiously termed
the “Mugwump” element in the Republican party, and this
would prove a balance wheel should he attempt to yield too sub—
missively to the pressure of the mere place-hunter, which was
now getting heavier every day.
On Nov. 25, 1885, the Vice-President, Thos. A. Hendricks,
died suddenly, and the President pro tem. of the Senate, John
Sherman, of Ohio, became acting Vice-President under the law.
This made a Republican President possible in the event of Mr.
Cleveland’s death.
FOR T Y-NINT H C ON GRESS—First Session.-—Met Dec.- 7,
518 POLITICAL HISTORY.
1885. Much interest naturally centred in the meeting of this
Congress, the ﬁrst under the Cleveland administration. Parties
in the Senate stood: Republicans, 42; Democrats, 34; a Repub-
lican majority of 8. In the House the Democrats had 184
members and the Republicans 141, a Democratic majority of 43,
though four of these were Independents.
The President’s Message, his ﬁrst to any Congress, was eagerly
looked for. It proved to be a very lengthy document and a
worthy state paper. Its three salient .points were the much
mooted silver question, the tariff, and the civil service—with in-
teresting side lights on the Indian problem, commercial treaties,
Mormonism, the navy, and other current subjects. The Presi-
dent portrayed in sharp, bold outline the dangers of further coin-
age of the Bland silver dollar and urged that such coinage be
stopped. In his tariff views he practically gave away the case
of the free-trade element in his party and, while stopping short
of the doctrine of protection, landed squarely on the position oc-
cupied by Mr. Randall and the “protection” minority in his own
party. On the civil service question he wrote with dignity and
~ force in its favor, and this part of his message was greatly lauded
by his Independent Republican supporters and admirers. Thus
on all the vital issues the President showed himself far in advance
' of his party and quite square with the measures which had taken
shape within the past few years. In only one respect did he
appear to be unequal to his professions, and that was in the prac—
tical workings of the Civil Service act, which was not operating
so as to prevent rapid partisan changes in the ofﬁces, as was ex-
pected by its framers.
The House organized by the re-election of Mr. Carlisle, Ky.,
as Speaker Over Mr. Reed, Me. Though the Democrats had a
good working majority, they did not make much haste with
legislation, and the session proved long and uninteresting. An
episode occurred in the Senate which for a time ruffled the
political serenity and threatened a serious breach with the Presi-
dent. Mr. Cleveland had made a removal of a prominent ofﬁcial
for alleged cause, and had sent to the Senate the name of his
successor for conﬁrmation. The Senate asked for the papers

L.Q.C.LAMAR.
\W-ll'm
T Us.
~L\_\\\.\\\\\\\
\ ..
ova-b": ..n
:0‘
.~§$\~ .
~
\\\
\\\
BAYARD.
F.
THOS.


WM. F. VILAS.
AUGUSTUS H. GARLAND.
519
520 POLITICAL HISTORY OF
connected with the case, as was usual. Those relating to the
removal of the incumbent were withheld,» as being papers proper
only for Presidential review. The Senate made its demand more
peremptory. The President replied by sending an opinion of
his Attorney-General vindicating his course. The Senate in
turn resolved in the future to refuse its “advice and consent” to
all removals from ofﬁce, the papers relating to which were with-
held by the ‘President. It was but another form of the old vexa-
tious and dangerous question how far the President can annul by
arbitrary removal the assent which the Senate gives under the
Constitution to an Executive appointment.
The weighty and absorbing question in the House was the old
Morrison Tariff bill in fresh garb. It was more than ever a
Democratic Stumbling-block, and was ﬁnally defeated by a refusal
of the House to go into Committee of the Whole to consider it as
reported from the Committee of Ways and Means, aDemocratic
minority voting with the Republicans to secure this end. In its
work the Senate was far in advance of the House, and that body
passed such important bills as one to provide for Counting the
Electoral Vote, the Blair Educational bill, supplement to the act
to suppress Polygamy, etc., none of which were reached in the
House. ‘The River and Harbor bill for the session appropriated
the muniﬁcent sum of $14,473,900. Large appropriations were
also made for improving the navy by means of new war steamers.
The President used his veto power with vigor upon bills grant-
ing pensions to Union soldiers in special cases. One hundred
and ﬁfteen of these bills-thus fell under executive displeasure.
A bill regulating the Presidential Succession became a law Jan-
uary 19, 1886. This session dragged its tedious length into
August, and passed into history as one of the longest on record,
while measured by its achievements it was by far the longest.
It was never at any time animated ‘by heated party discussions,
and the dominant party ventured nothing in the shape of new
or aggressive measures. Congress adjourned August 5, 1886.
FOR T Y-NIN T H C ONGRESS—Second Session—Met Dec.
6, 1886. But little had transpired during the short interval be-
tween the two sessions of the Forty-ninth Congress to rufﬂe the
THE UNITED STATES. 521
current of political events. The Congressional elections in No-
vember showed a drift of sentiment away from the Democrats
arid back toward the Republicans in districts where the lines
were sharply drawn between Protection and Free-Trade. The
comfortable working majority of forty-three which the Demo-
crats enjoyed in the Forty-ninth Congress was reduced to a slen-
der majority of sixteen in the Fiftieth Congress, and more than
two-thirds of this loss of twenty-four members was accounted for ,
by the distaste of constituents for the F ree-Trade leanings of
their old members.
Though the political outlook did not augur well for what was
popularly spoken of as the Carlisle sentiment in ‘the Democratic
party, the President did not hesitate to take a decided step in
his message toward the doctrine entertained by the majority
wing of his party. After expressing disappointment at the little
progress made during the previous long session toward reaching
conclusions on such momentous questions as the “ﬁsheries ne-
gotiations,” the reduction of the surplus, the suspension of com-
pulsory coinage, etc., the President repeated with emphasis the
language of his former message regarding the necessity of di-
minishing taxation to a point within the needs of the country,but
now he was no longer undecided as to the means. Reduction
by removing the internal revenue tax was scarcely alluded to,
but the plan which he seemed to think wisest was ajudicious
scaling of the tariff on imports, and especially a transfer of many
of the cruder articles from the dutiable to the free list. The
message, which was lengthy and diffuse, concluded with a de-
fence of his pension vetoes during the former session.
This session of the Congress was bound to be crowded and
confused, for an’immense amount of unﬁnished work came down
from the previous session, and many new questions were press-
ing for solution. The Democratic majority in the House grappled
heroically at ﬁrst with the tariff issue, but the time was frittered
away in useless conferences between the majority and minority‘
wings of their party, and the whole matter remained as if it had
been untouched. Speaker Carlisle was so ﬁrm in his position
that revenue reduction should only come about by means of
522 POLITICAL HISTORY.
scaling the tariff rates, that he refused to let a vote be taken on
a minority bill to repeal the internal tax on tobacco.
The Senate anti-Polygamy bill of the last session was passed,
in the House. It had the effect of virtually disfranchising the
Mormons, and was the severest blow that peculiar institution
had yet received from the government. The Inter~State Com-
merce bill also passed. This measure established a commission
_ whose duty was to inquire into railway management, break up
harmful combinations, secure uniformity of rates and in every
way nationalize through-route trafﬁc. This act did not draw
party lines closely, though it was not in harmony with the an-
cient State-right theories of many of the Southern Representa-
tives. Among the other bills of more or less political signiﬁcance
passed during the session was one granting pensions to Mexican
soldiers, one redeeming the “Trade Dollars,” the Senate Bill
regulating the Electoral Count, and the bill repealing the Tenure
of Ofﬁce Law. The Dependent Pension bill for Union soldiers
was passed, vetoed by the President, and failed to pass over his
veto.
This important session, which witnessed the end of the Forty-
ninth Congress and the completion of two years of a Democratic
administration, placed to its credit some very desirable legisla-
tion, but failed to project into laws the issues which were dis-
tinctively political and respecting which parties were divided or
likely to divide.
The session adjourned by limitation on March 4, 1887, and
the Congress as an entirety left the Tariff and Internal Revenue
questions where it found them; the Free Silver Coinage Law
remaincd in a worse state than before, for the issue of one, two and
ﬁve dollar silver certiﬁcates, based on the coin stored in the vaults,
was only a postponement of the real question; the Paciﬁc Rail-
road indebtedness was left to increase under the lame provisions
of the old Thurman Act; the bankrupt laws were left to the
mercy of each State; the basis of the National Bank circulation
was permitted to dwindle away without providing a substitute;
indigent war veterans were unprovided for; the Senate bill
raising a Commission to examine into the Liquor Trafﬁc was

THOMAS A. HENDRICKS.

108- E- MCDONALD- DON M. DICKINSON.
523
524 POLITICAL HISTORY.
ignored; the Blair Educational bill found no favor at all in the
House; all of the bills looking to the admission of Dakota and
Washington Territories died in the committee’s hands. The bill
imposing a tax on oleomargarine, and reducing postage to two
. cents per ounce, both of which became laws, met a unanimous
popular wish. The closing days of Congress were so crowded
that the Deﬁciency Appropriation bill failed to pass, and there
was considerable agitation over the prospects of an extra session
for the purpose of providing funds necessary to meet claims
against the government. _
FIFTIETH CONGRESS—First Session—Met Dec. 5, 1887_
In the ‘Senate the Republicans had a majority of one. In the
House the parties stood: Democrats, 168; Republicans, 152;
Independents, 4; vacancy, 1.. The Democrats renominated Mr.
Carlisle, Ky., for Speaker, and the‘ Republicans Mr. Reed, Me.
Carlisle was elected by a vote of 163 to 148, a majority of 15.
The Democratic House majority in the previous (Forty-ninth)
Congress was 43. The Speaker’s address declared that this
Congress must assume the responsibility of removing taxation
and stopping the accumulation of revenue in the Treasury, in
order to avoid depression of industries and probable panic; and
it should so legislate as not to disturb invested capital or seriously
affect the status of labor. ‘
The President’s Message was a brief paper of about 4,500
words and a new departure in the way of annual messages. It
made no allusion to the various matters of interest presented by
the heads of departments in their reports, nor to any measure of
general moment save that branch of ﬁnance which concerned
taxation, customs’ duties and the Treasury surplus. In this
respect it was a special paper rather than an executive review
of the entire country, and was apparently called forth by an ex-
isting party demand for, deﬁnite legislative action during the
session of Congress. It indicated a wide departure on the part
of the President from the position held by him in former mes-
sages, and a seeming conversion to the free-trade doctrines main-
tained by a majority of his party. It was a surprise to all ex-
cept the initiated, and was much discussed by friends and foes.

H35: a.
:2
\
F.
\
N

2% a.
R
s
H
526 ‘ POLITICAL HISTORY OF
‘The former saw in ita bold, clear statement of the true situation,
and they regarded it as a timely declaration of the principles of
Democracy as they must take shape in the next presidential
campaign. Indeed it may be truthfully said that the radical free-
traders of the party rejoiced over the signal recognition of their
particular views by the President. On the other hand, the more
conservative element of the _party, and especially the “Protec-
tion,” or “ Revenue Reform,” element, headed by ' Mr. Randall,
did not look upon it kindly. They regarded it as an unwise
paper at that juncture, and as containing the seeds of'political
disaster 'to the party, while it virtually crushed them as an im-
portant minority factor. The Republicans accepted it as a
throwing down of the free-trade gauntlet and an invitation to
them to contest the case of “ F rec-trade as. Protection,” both in
the halls of Congress and the coming national campaign. They
criticised it for its lack of new and convincing argument; its dis-
crimination against the protective system in general, and the item
of wool in particular, and for its unnecessarily bitter spirit, as
evinced by such expressions as, “ But our present tariff laws, the
vicious, inequitable and illogical source of unnecessary taxation,
ought to be at once revised and amended.” They'looked upon
it as disingenuous and illogical in the ‘respect that while the
President professed to be moved by an honest desire to'reduce
the surplus in the Treasury, he entirely overlooked the'very easy
and popular means of doing it by abolishing the internal revenue
taxes—a set of taxes which the Democrats had always denounced
as odious, iniquitous and savoring of war times—-but selected as
a means that which would prove a blow to American‘ industries
and the entire system of protection, and which, at any rate, would
not work out in practice, sinceto reduce duties on articles of
import below the point of protection was but to invite a larger
importation and increased revenue.
President Cleveland handed to the Senate for conﬁrmation the
nomination of L. C. Lamar, Miss, his Secretary‘ of Interior,
to be an Assistant ustice of the U. S. Supreme Court; William
F. Vilas, Wis., his Postmaster-General, to be Secretary of the
Interior; Charles S. Fairchild, N. Y., Acting Secretary of the
THE UNITED STATES. 527
Treasury, to be Secretary in place of Daniel Manning, resigned,
and since dead; Don M. Dickinson, Mich., to be Postmaster-
General. These nominations were promptly conﬁrmed, except
that of Lamar for’ a U. S. Justice, which hung for several weeks
in the Senate and was then conﬁrmed by a very small majority.
Mr. Carlisle withheld his selection of the House Committees till
after the holiday recess, so that the Congress was not organized
for effective work till the middle of January, 1888.
A serious question, which did not divide parties, but which
reﬂected seriously on the tardiness or indifference of the admin-
istration, arose two or three years before this time in the form of
what was known as “The Fishery Question.” The Canadian
authorities had repeatedly seized American ﬁshing vessels putting
into their ports, under their construction of existing treaties,
which prevented such vessels from ﬁshing within three miles of
the shores- The Canadian-s drew the limit from head-land to
head-land of their bays and inlets. The Americans insisted on
a three-mile limit which followed the coast indentations. The
frequent seizures led to indignation on the part of the ﬁshing in-
terests, and ﬁnally to the conclusion that the time had come for
a modiﬁcation of the treaties if war was to be averted. The
Forty-ninth Congress authorized the President to take such steps
as would remedy the evils and preserve the dignity of the United
States, even going so far as to authorize him to use retaliatory
powers. His Secretary of State, Mr. Bayard, called a Commis-
sion to investigate the matter. This Commission was met at
Washington, in November, 1887, by a Commissioner from Eng-
land and one from Canada. Their sittings ran into February,
1888, when an agreement, in treaty form, was submitted to the
Senate without hope of adoption, as it surrendered as many
vital points of dispute as it gained.
The Report of the Secretary of Treasury to the Congress
showed that the Treasury surplus, about which all parties were
exercised, and which had really come to mean unnecessary drain-
age of the country and dangerous locking up of so much of the
circulating medium, was, Dec. I, 1887, $5 5,2 59,000; and would
be by June 30, 1888, $140,000,000. *
~ 528 POLITICAL HISTORY.
Not a very pleasant feature of the opening of this Congress
was the contest for his Seat which the Speaker, Mr. Carlisle, was
forced into by Mr. Thoebe, an Independent and Labor Demo-
crat, who claimed to have been elected in the Sixth District of
Kentucky by 600 majority. The contest was decided eventually
in favor of Mr. Carlisle, and whatever the merits of the case may
have been, it is historic that the election in 1886 was close in a
district which had given Mr. Carlisle 6,000 majority in 1884, and
that on the whole the revolution was scarcely more signal than
that which had retired many members of Mr. Carlisle’s economi-
cal school in other Congressional districts.
Mr. Mills, of Texas, took hold of the tariff measure which the
Democrats, as a majority party, were under obligation to present,
and the management of which usually gave one the distinction
of a party leader. It was evident from the beginning that this
was to be the absorbing measure of the session, and that upon it,
together with the repeal of internal taxation, party lines would
be closely drawn, except as the followers of Mr. Randall chose
to divert a Democratic contingent into Republican channels.
A ﬁnal vote was reached in the House on Aug. 21, which
showed 162 for‘ the bill and 149 against it. Party lines were never
more closely drawn on a tariff measure. The bill lowered the
scale of duties, and placed many articles classed as raw materials
on the free list, among them wool. '
POLITICAL SITUA TION.—-The Democrats met in National
Convention at St. Louis, June 5, 1888, and nominated President
Grover Cleveland for President by acclamation. Allen G. Thur--
man, Ohio, was nominated for Vice-President. The platform re-
afﬁrmed that of 1884, and indorsed President Cleveland’s last
annual message as a correct interpretation of it.
The Republicans met in National Convention at Chicago, June
19, 1888, and nominated Benjamin Harrison, Ohio, for President,
and Levi P. Morton, N. Y., for Vice-President. Their platform
. took strong ground in favor of a protective policy and urged the
repeal of all internal taxes except that on whiskey not used in
the arts. But, if necessary, all internal taxation should be re-
moved rather than that the principle of protection should suffer.

é? ,
. aw
)
‘w "1.4/0
. .Ma
['4
S. GBOVEB CLEV ELAND
r
..J r
..Lf. {aura/a .
1/ (‘Drive It I Q 1
his‘: 1|." I I
..a
n
A)»
x .

BENJAMLT HARRISON.

LEVI P. MORTON.

. . Q .
\lﬂirnwss
. NR
.\

.lstux

4444......
\.u. -. . l l. v
\
I‘
O
000.0
‘:"O‘a‘a'o .
O
.l 0,0.
',’,I I , I I
' . ‘31'!’
- . . .
ALLEN G. TH URMAN.
P RESENT
POLITICAL QUESTIONS.

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.
TS NATURE—The Civil Service properly embraces all
ofﬁcials, outside of the army and navy, engaged in ad-
8’ ministering a government, National or State.
In our government a part of these ofﬁcials are elected
by the people, as the President and members of Con-
gress. Senators are elective, but by Legislatures. So in the
States, Governors and various State ofﬁcers are elective. What-
ever their importance, their number is smaller than the appointive
- ofﬁcials. ‘Whether elective or appointive, all these ofﬁcials go
to make up the civil service; that is, they carry on the civil
administration.
But elective ofﬁcials are responsible directly to the people.
They do not constitute a part of the civil service in its narrower
sense. In this narrower sense the civil service embraces only
. the appointive ofﬁcials. But before we reach that part of the
civil service which is now the object of reform, we must still
further narrow it to those ofﬁcials who are appointive and whose
duties are subordinate to the heads of the various departments
in which they serve. The heads of all important departments,
and especially those ranking as Cabinet ofﬁcers, are so closely
identiﬁed with the elective ofﬁcials, and their function has still
so much'of a political caste that they are not yet regarded as
within the scope of statutory civil service reform, though they
may be if 3tithe reform is ever carried to completion.
la
2a, CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.
The theory of civil administration which prevailed in all the -
feudal countries of Europe was that ofﬁce, from king to lowest
retainer, was a right and a property. It was, therefore, used in
a selﬁsh, arbitrary way, not to advance the welfare of the State
or Citizen, but in the interest of the ofﬁcial and his party. All
ofﬁce became a source of corruption, tyranny and positive dan—
ger. This, more than anything else, was what broke the back
of feudalism. The battle carried on for centuries between the
people and titled ofﬁcials was really a battle for reform in the
administration of civil affairs. The death of feudalism meant
the substitution of a new for the old doctrine respecting ofﬁce
and ofﬁcials. Office was no longer a right nor its possessor a
despotic owner. It was a trust, and its possessor a trustee for
the people. The change was not immediate, but civil adminis-
tration came to mean something vastly different from before. It
was no longer a system for the perpetuation of party or men in
power, nor for the subjugation of sentiment to their uses. The
civil service was not’a machine organized for personal and ambi-
tious ends, but an agency for conducting the business of the
State or people on honest and economic principles. All this in
theory at least.
Ever regarding the problem of civil administration with
anxiety, and ever wishing to proﬁt by the wisest experience and
best examples of the old world, our early statesmen held with
the utmost tenacity to the doctrine that ofﬁce was a trust, sacred
in proportion to its dignity and responsibility, whose administra-
tion in order to be effective must be wholly in the interest of the
entire people, and into which there. should creep as little of the
selﬁshness and personalism of the holder or the ambitions of his
party as possible. This doctrine characterized, if it did not
dominate, all civil administration prior to the formation of the
Constitution. After that it was conspicuous in every national
administration up to that of President Jackson. Without much
drift toward the opposite, with, as it were, a skip and a bound
over all precedent, there was then a sudden return to the ex-
ploded doctrine of feudal times. With a simple wave of his
presidential wand Jackson called up out of the recesses of a
CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 3a
hoary past what became, in its newly vitalized form, the dogma
that “to the victor belong the spoils of the enemy.” It was as
if civic administration had been thrown back four hundred years
by some giant of retrogression. It was the incorporation of a
principle into modern civil procedure, which crowned king and
titled retainer had used for a thousand years to perpetuate war-
like power at the expense of the people’s manhood and ability,
of all political progress, and even of liberty itself. It was strange
that such a thing could happen at a time so remote from the
feudal ages, and amid institutions which had grown out of oppos
sition to feudal practices. It was stranger still that it should
ﬁnd ready acceptance by politicians and all political classes, and
become so popular as to require years of organized reform to
check and banish it.*
The practical application of the Jacksonian doctrine resulted
in the removal of all civil service ofﬁcials and the substitution of
those who professed a politics in accord with the Administration.
He justiﬁed his action by the charge that he found himself
surrounded by political enemies, and by the claim that he had a
right to be surrounded only by political friends if a perfect
administration of civic affairs were expected. What po-
litical opinion had to do with mere clerical or administrative
ability; why he chose to regard personal or party allegiance as
preferable to supreme allegiance to the government; whether
subserviency of mind or conviction was a guarantee of business
qualiﬁcation and pure civil methods; these were questions he did
not ask, or if so, did not answer.
Administration has followed administration in recognizing the
right to make a clean sweep of civil service ofﬁcials. Every
head of a department feels that it is incumbent on him to cast
his eye along the civil service lines and spy out hostile heads for
* “/From that hour (Jackson’s administration) this maxim has remained an invio~
lable principle of American politicians, and it is owing only to the astonishing
vitality of the people of the United States and to the altogether unsurpassed and
unsurpassablefavor of their natural conditions that the State has not succumbed
under the onerous burdens of the curse.”— Van Holst’s Constz'tutz'mal History qft/ze
United States.
4a CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.
the political guillotine. A change is expected with every
administration, and failure to make it is not only a disappoint—
ment but a source of unpopularity. If such change were made
in order to Secure greater ofﬁcial merit, it would be desirable at
all times. But there is no such plea, nor any test to insure it.
On the contrary, the popular plea is now j ustiﬁcation by prece-
dent and reliance on the feudal dogma, “to the victor belong
the spoils.” And as to test, it is, what has he done? what can
he. do, for the party or the patron? The entire civil service is a
farming ground for political leaders and their lieutenants.
Promises of place are the incentives for prior political exertion;
places themselves the rewards of such exertion, if success
ensue. Thus there is always an army of aspirants for civil
places who have no merit except ability to manipulate a ward
or district in the interest of a prospective patron. They be-
come henchmen rather than competent, trustworthy ofﬁcials, and
rely for their places more on allegiance to men than on the honesty
and capacitywhich alone could sustain them in business circles.
The effect of a system like this—called by some the “ system
of rotation,” by others the “ spoils system”—cannot but be
dangerous in the end to all purity, economy and efﬁciency in
civil administration. It ﬁnds no countenance in any business,
nor in any place outside of the civil service of the country. It
tends directly to the destruction of conﬁdence in the method of
popular government through and by means of parties, whose
real will it as often thwarts as carries out. It gives rise to
closely corporate and mercenary political classes, to cliques and
juntas Of stipendiaries; to despotic machines which run away
with higher party instincts and pervert the sober judgments of
the people. Popular election fails to be a faithful registry of
studied sentiment and abiding conviction, but is a record simply
of the desires of a scheming and ambitious few, at odds, as like
as not, with every interest except their own. And these demor-
alizing effects are not limited to civic administration of National
affairs. They are felt in all the States, in all the larger cities, in
fact, wherever civic ofﬁcials are sufﬁciently ‘numerous, and civic
affairs sufﬁciently intricate, to pass beyond the direct scrutiny
and knowledge of the individual voter.
CIVIL sERvIcE REFORM. ' 5a
It is the province of Civil Service Reform to overcome these
dangerous tendencies and break up this demoralizing system by
substituting the principles of civic administration which prevailed
in the early days of the Republic, and so embalming them in the
forms of law and practice as to make it impossible for President,
Governor or any elective ofﬁcial to set them aside at his
pleasure. Since the subject of this reform has been broached, it
has grown in proportion to its importance, and has already
taken the substantial form of experimental law in the National
and some of the State governments, upon which law has been
based an ‘intelligent civil service procedure, destined to secure
appointive civic ofﬁcials without regard to their political opinions,
but with regard solely to their merits, and to give them a tenure
and term of ofﬁce based on manhood and administrative excel-
lence.
HISTORY ABROAD—A fuller understanding of the sub-
ject of Civil Service Reform may be had by brief reference to its
history, especially in Great Britain, whose civil service is the
largest in the world, has engaged most profoundly the attention
of her statesmen, and has taken the most perfect reformatory
shapes. During the feudal periods in England and every other
European country, power over the civil service, which was
equivalent to the King’s service, was arbitrary. Neither char—
acter, capacity, economy, justice, duty, nor responsibility of any
kind was recognized by the ruler, if demanded by the subject, in
connection with civil appointments and removals. King‘ and
chieftain held universal, unchallenged, despotic control over all
subordinates, and regarded them and their places as appendages
and perquisites of their own paramount authority.
Against this came early revolt. Magma C/zarla, to which we.
trace many of the principles of our Constitution, contained the
ﬁrst civil service rule in English history. King John was made
to promise that he “would not'make any justices, constables,
sheriffs, or bailiffs, but of such as-know the law of the realm and .
mean to truly observe it.” Not'a State in our Union insists on
a similar qualiﬁcation for its magistrates. As soon as the rebel-
lion which forced Magna C/zarm from John died away, this high
6a CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.
qualiﬁcation for then important ofﬁces was neglected and scorned,
and the old abuses were renewed. Ofﬁce again became a per-
quisite and justice a farce. What the King and the favored
ofﬁcials chose to barter became authority, whose merchandise
vitiated and benumbed the moral sense of the nation till reform
was ten times harder than before. Not only in matters of State
were ofﬁces dealt out to servile holders, but church ofﬁces were
sold to the highest bidder, or disposed of so as best to secure
favorites or placate enemies. This venality, running along for
centuries, and over times when the moral sense was not active,
begat a public opinion which looked upon it as inevitable. It
was so in France, in Germany, and wherever feudalism had left
its impressions. Besides, those who sanctioned this corruption
were the ruling caste, the high-born, the titled, the educated,
Kings, nobles, priests, lawyers. If ever reform was to come it
must be looked for from sources far below these. The people
themselves must move. It must be a battle of the masses
against the privileged few, and the cause one of equal rights and
personal merit against the arrogant and narrowing assumptions
of political ofﬁcials.
This spoils system, nurtured in despotism, injustice, and even
violence, gave rise to a second rebellion in 1377. It was the
Wat Tyler rebellion. A third followed in the ﬁfteenth century,
known as the Jack Cade rebellion. Both were protests against ofﬁ-
cial and partisan tyranny; both attempts to secure civil service
reform. They did but scatter a little wider the seeds of whole-
some public sentiment. In all else they were failures. Planta-
genet and Tudor adhered to their arbitrary disposition of ofﬁces,
though in the face of a people whose fears of feudal practices
were gradually growing less. Yet power felt the weakness of
its position, for amid the religious furore from Henry VIII. to
James II., it bolstered itself with the dogma of the “divine right
of kings,” and James I. announced, “As it is atheism and blas-
phemy in a creature to dispute what the Deity may do, so it is
presumption and sedition in a subject to dispute what a king
may do in the height of his power.” During his reign ofﬁcial
corruption became more shameless than ever before.
CIVIL sERvICE REFORM. 70,
Popular intelligence was growing apace. Pym, Elliot, Hamp-
den and Puritanism were possible. So was Cromwell, the latter
not a mere administrative reformer, but an impersonation of a
new spirit in both religion and politics. He stood for the peo~
ple, as against rank, privilege and the entire spoils system. He
disrupted, overthrew, abolished, puriﬁed, in the name of economy,
merit and reform. It was a magniﬁcent outburst of the people’s
power, and a mighty lesson in political history. Cromwell did
not fail in the means to precipitate revolution, but when it
came to perpetuating it, not unmixed with his own personalism,
he resorted to the ofﬁcial tests against which his whole move-
ment was a protest. His death was the rapid decline of the
revolution. He reformed a wicked and daring system only
in part. But he left anv army of bold thinkers on political
questions, and the system he struck at was never to regain its
old prestige.
The Bill of Rights which settled William Prince of Orange
on the throne (1688) was very nearly a set of Civil Service
Rules. It saved the judiciary, even down to the magistrates,
from all political interference, and greatly modiﬁed patronage in
every department of civic administration. A few of the higher
ofﬁcials whose intimacy with the king was unquestioned and
whose advice and conﬁdence he ought to have, were still to be
his own appointees. These became his especial ministers, and
the body together his Cabinet. Thus the old Privy Council
was superseded, and the new body became that upon which our
own Cabinet is modelled. Henceforth in England the per-
sonalism of power was lost, and the politics of the realm was
vested in parties of the people. Would they prove any purer
and better than kings, nobles, and the central juntas? Not a
whit. Parties in Parliament resorted to the same old means of
securing and retaining power. Partisan appointments to ofﬁce,
illegal use of patronage, the raising up of an army of political
adherents by distribution of spoils, these were to be sources of
corruption and disgrace for a hundred and ﬁfty years more.
The only difference was they were more visible, and parties
could be more readily rebuked. The people had, or could
Sa, CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.
have, temporary redress. Parliament and parties could not
be so effectively tyrannical and dangerous, such complete rob-
bers of rights, as kings and privileged classes had been.
The old reform battles between the people and. the privileged
classes were therefore to be renewed between the people and the
Parliaments. Manfully was the struggle carried on. The fall
of Lord North and the Independence of America mark its cul—
minating point. After that, from 1800 to 1853, the monopoly
of patronage in the Parliament witnessed a decline. Reform
statutes began to crowd the books. Notions of civil adminis-
tration on a business basis took deep hold. The people held
mass meetings and demanded economic service and their right
to recognition on the ground of merit. Public opinion in favor
of mental and moral tests of ﬁtness for civil places grew rapidly,
and the political leaders were forced to bow to it. The English
civil service was then the largest in the world, the East Indian
branch alone requiring an army of ofﬁcials. In 185 3 the efforts
of reform were crowned with success by the opening of the civil
service to free competition, and the ‘acceptance of all minor ofﬁ-
cials on the basis of merit established by actual examination.
A permanent Civil Service Commission was established, whose
business was to complete the reform. The work has gone on
from reform to reform, ever since. Qi‘iﬁcial monopoly of nomi-
nation has been broken up. Report after report has been made
by the commission in proof of the signal superiority of the new
over the old service. The political atmosphere is purer every-
where. The young of all classes are stimulated to qualify for
examination. Certainty of civil position, without a barter of
manhood, sale of principle, or promise of subserviency, renders
place desirable and honorable. Then after the holder is worn
out with labor, or bowed with years, he is taken care of by the
government he has faithfully served. There is no leading Eng-
lish statesman to-day who does not testify to the value of this
great reform. It is permanently incorporated on the civic ad'-
ministration and for its great purity and elevation. Says Sir
Charles Trevelyan, “You cannot lay too much stress on the
fact that the making of public appointments by open competi-
CIVIL SERVICE ‘REFORM. 9a
tion'has been accepted by all our political parties, and there is
no sign of any movement against it from any quarter.”
HISTORY AT HOME—The ﬁrst Congress had under con-
sideration the subject of civil service. It refused to limit the
term of civic ofﬁces, for the reason that the power of executive
removal rendered such a limitation unnecessary. This was
clearly in accord with the constitutional intention, for that in-
strument when it ﬁxes a term and tenure for non-elective ofﬁ-
cials—judges for instance—extends it over a period of efficiency
and good behavior. Judgment as to a like period for subordi-
nate civic ofﬁcials was left with the President. They were
appointive ‘for publicconsiderations—not private—and for such
term as they proved adequate to the discharge of ' duty properly
and satisfactorily.
As to the higher ofﬁces—cabinet ofﬁces and those intimately
advisory—Washington said, “ I shall not, while I have the honor
to administer the government, bring a man into any oﬁice of
consequence, knowingly, whose political tenets are adverse to
the measures which the general government is pursuing, for this
vin my opinion would be a sort of political suicide.” The Re-
publican Jefferson and Federalist Bayard both reiterated this
doctrine in 1800, and took care to exclude from it all subordinate
ministerial ofﬁcials. Woolsey in his Political Science says,
“When the Democratic (Republican) party came into power
with Mr. Jefferson, the- removals were so few that single cases
excited a sense of wrong through a whole State.” John C.
'Calhoun, in his speech in the Senate (1835) on Jackson’s
removals, ‘said, “Then (Jefferson’s administration) the dismissal
of a few inconsiderable ofﬁcers, on party grounds as was sup-
posed, was followed by a general burst of indignation; but now
the dismissal of thousands, when it is openly avowed that the
public ofﬁces are the spoils of the victors, produces scarcely a
sensation.” Buchanan said in the Senate (1839), “I should not
become an inquisitor of the political opinions of the subordinate
ofﬁce-holders who are receiving salaries of some $800 or $1,000
a year.” -
When the subject was up in the First Congress (1789) Madi-
10g, CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.
son laid down the principles which were generally accepted by
his contemporaries and uniformly enforced till 1820. They
were to the effect that the power and duty of making removals
were equally vested in the President alone, with an authority
on the part of the House of Representatives to impeach him if
he should either allow an unworthy ofﬁcer to continue in place
or wantonly remove a meritorious ofﬁcer. Fidelity and efﬁciency
were the measure of tenure, as character and capacity were the
tests of appointments. There was no ﬁxed term and apparently
no need of any. Washington made only nine removals, and-all
for cause. John Adams made only nine removals, and none, so
far as is known, for political reasons. '
Jefferson confronted a situation somewhat novel. There had
been a political revolution. He saw, or chose to see, something
obnoxious in a few of Adams’ appointees, and so removed
several, among whom was the collector Of New Haven. The
fact that his successor was old and inefficient drew a remon-
strance from the citizens, and this a reply from Jefferson, in
which he said, “Is it political intolerance to claim a propor-
tionate share in the direction of public affairs? If a due par-
ticipation of ofﬁce is a matter of right, how are vacancies to be
obtained? Those by death are few, by resignation none. , I
proceed in the Operation with deliberation and inquiry thatI may
injure the best men least, and effect the purposes of justice and
public utility with the least private distress, that it may be thrown
as much as possible on delinquency, oppression, intolerance, and
ante-revolutionary adherence to our enemies.” Then lamenting
the fact that he found none of his party friends in ofﬁce, he pro-
ceeds, “ I shall correct the procedure, but that done, return with
joy to that state of things when the only question concerning a
candidate shall be: Is be honest? Is he capable? Is he faith-
ful to the constitution?” This is worthy of notice as the ﬁrst
announcement by a President of a civil service method to be
applied to subordinate ofﬁcials. It has been variously con-
strued, some choosing to see in it the enunciation of a principle
which in Jackson’s time became the cry of “to the victor be-
long the spoils,” Others the doctrine that only honesty, capacity
CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 11a
and patriotic ﬁdelity should prevail in determining appointments
and removals, perhaps obscured a little by impatience over the
slowness of time to made desirable vacancies. He made only
thirty-nine removals, and none of them, as he declared, for politi-
cal reasons.
Madison made only ﬁve removals; Monroe only nine; John
Q. Adams only two ; and all these for cause. Of course defal-
cations and inefﬁciency in ofﬁce were not wholly unknown, but,
in general, civic administration was able, pure and respectful.
No other government had then reached so high a plane of
fairness in dealing with those who served it, nor exhibited
greater regard for character and ﬁtness in its subordinate em-
ployés.
It seems almost impossible that this early system, so fully
agreed upon by statesmen and parties, so strongly entrenched
in our institutions, so supported by custom and practice, should
shake and crumble. Let it be said with pride that the national
government, however responsible for its downfall later on,
was not at ﬁrst to blame. The blight of the spoils system
spread to it from the States, and notably from New York. That
State had gained unenviable fame in the political contests of
1808, in which Van Buren traded his services to Tompkins for
a udgeship. The Clintonian school was equally reckless. The
judiciary was dragged down into the mire of politics. Before
1830 no State judge had ever gained ofﬁce by popular vote.
After that the infection spread, and now the judges of twenty-
four States are selected at the polls for short terms, though the
average term has gradually lengthened during later years and
under the inﬂuence of a reaction which was inevitable.
Proﬁting by the power which judicious use of patronage
bestowed, Burr completed the system of political spoils in New
York by requiring short terms of ofﬁce, strict partisan tests,
and servile obedience to leaders on the part of all officials.
Even Clinton winced under the organized interference of
Federal ofﬁcials with the politics of the State. Civic affairs
there were characterized by the most desperate and unscrupulous
management. The new system was not without fascination for
12a CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.
.
the ambitious. It never has been. Even Jackson, during _his
early aspirations for the Presidency, said, “I am no politician,
but if I were, I would be a New York politician.” All this was
before 1820.
In that year the infection of the New York system passed
from the States to the Federal government. A law was enacted
which was credited to the joint ingenuity of Crawford and Van
Buren, both aspirants for the Presidency, and which was clearly
designed to open political patronage to ambitious and personal
uses. It was the ﬁrst law which ﬁxed a term for minor civil
ofﬁces. Changing their constitutional or customary tenure, it
gave to district attorneys, collectors, naval ofﬁcers, surveyors,
paymasters and several other ofﬁcers of like or lesser grade 3.
term of four years. It declared the commissions of all ofﬁcers
dated Sept. 30, I814, vacant on'the same date of September,
1820. Thus by retroactive legislation a full line of vacancies was
secured on the very eve of a Presidential election. The act
further provided that all these ofﬁcers should subsequently be
removable at pleasure. This was rotation for the mere sake of
rotation, ‘and further it was decided revolution, so far as all pre—
cedent and all constitutional construction went. Such an act must
have been impossible, but for the fact that there were no party
lines at the time, and only a set of political factions or cliques,
each with aspiring leaders, and each leader anxious to circum-
vent the other. A marvellous accompaniment of the bill was
that there never was any previous thought of its introduction,
- no allegation of civic wrong-doing which it was to correct, no
charge that the President could not or would not remove un~
worthy ofﬁcials, not a word of debate over it, not a record of
votes made on its passage. It moved through both Houses
with the stealth of a serpent, and brought a civic revolution as
disastrous as it was degrading. Calhoun on hearing of its pass-
age declared it “ one of the most dangerous bills ever passed, and
that it- would work a revolution.” Jefferson wrote to Madison
in November, 1820, condemning the act as introducing fatal
intrigue and corruption. Madison replied that the law was cer-
tainly pregnant with mischiefs, and that if the error be not at
CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 13a
once corrected, relief will be difﬁcult, for it is of a nature to
take deep root. John Quincy Adams, President Monroe's
Secretary of State, gave it out that the President signed the bill
unwarily and without perceiving its real character, and that in
spite of it he adhered to the only just and constitutional practice
of renominating every ofﬁcer at the expiration of ' his com-
mission unless some ofﬁcial delinquency or 'unﬁtness was
proved. He further said, “if the principle of the statute is
sound, Congress may limit the term of appointments to a
single year, to a week or a day, and so annihilate the executive
power.”
Six years after its passage (1826) an effort was made to repeal
it, but the spoils system had gotten a hold and was gaining
cankero'us headway in the body politic. The act was clearly
emboldening the spirit which gave it birth. Van Buren, who
ranked as the greatest party manipulator of his time, did not
hesitate to show to what uses it could be put. More cautious
men still continued to deprecate party tests for ofﬁce. Even
Jackson, as late as 1824, in a letter to Monroe, declined to favor
such tests. .
By 1828 Jackson, then President, was a thorough convert to
Van Buren’s idea and to the spoils system. So full of the spirit
of that system was he, that his administration was signalized by
the removal of twenty times more ofﬁcials, for partisan purposes,
than all who had been removed for any cause since the founda-
tion of the government. - Nor was he even yet satisﬁed. Thirsty
for other vacancies, he recommended in his ﬁrst message, “ a gen-
eral extension of the law which limits appointments to four years.”
Even his‘ most admiring follbwers shrank from his suggestion.
That message further declared “rotation a leading principle in
the Republican (Democratic) creed.” Three years later (1832)
Senator Marcy, in the Senate, and in answer to Clay’s taunt that
the New York system was fully abroad in the national govern-
ment, entered upon its defense, and used these memorable words:
“ When they (the New York politicians) are contending for
victory, they avow the intention of enjoying the fruits of it. If
they are defeated, they expect to retire from ofﬁce. If they are
14a CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.
successful, they claim as a matter of right the advantage of suc-
cess. T key see nothing wrong in tlze rule that to the wider 6elong'
the spoils 0]’ the enemy.”
This language seems to have set the seal of political approval
on the new revolutionary and degrading system of ofﬁcial spoils.
It was the end of the great leap which civic administration had
taken backward into the feudal ages. The system at full play
meant, no tenure for more than four years; oﬁ'ice and salaries
the spoils of party warfare; removals at pleasure; rotation in
order to give ofﬁce to as many personal or party followers as
possible; appointments and removals for political reasons; ofﬁ-
cial duty to mean servility to partisan leadership and willingness
to work for the party. Political assessments were of later
growth, but a natural outcrop of the ingenious, tyrannical and
iniquitous system. Such was the origin and spirit of the spoils
system.
On account of its “ great and alarming strides,” Calhoun again
(1835) moved the repeal of the four years’ law. The debate was
memorable. Webster and Calhoun were arrayed against Madi-
son, as to the dangerous enlargement of ofﬁcial power, but they
agreed in condemning the act of 1820. Webster was “ for stay-
ing the further contagion of this plague. Men in ofﬁce have
begun to think themselves mere agents and servants of the ap-
pointing power.” White, a supporter of Jackson, declared that
“ under the present state of things, society will become demor-
alized, the business of ofﬁce-seeking will become a science, ofﬁce-
hunters will come on with one pocket full of bad characters, with
which to turn out incumbents, and the other full of good char-
acters, with which to provide for 'constituents.” Calhoun said,
“ that the most certain road to honor and fortune is servility and
ﬂattery.” Southard declared that the act of 1820 “ had tended
to make ofﬁce-holders servile supplicants, destitute of independ-
ence of character and of manly feeling.” Benton said, “ the act
had become the means of getting rid of faithful ofﬁcers, and the
expiration of a four years’ term came to be considered as the
vacation -of all ofﬁcers on whom it fell.” The bill for repeal
passed the Senate by a vote of 31 to 16, but that was the end of it.
CIVII. SERVICE REFORM. 150,
There has been no later attempt to wipe out this four years’
law. The Whigs, on their accession to power in 1840, might
have been expected to correct a system they had ridiculed, op-
posed and despised. But they adopted it, and from that time on
it grew apace until it ﬁnally came to be regarded as indispen-
sable to party success and government. The sons seemed not
to be alarmed at the dangers which the fathers had apprehended
from an extended and corrupt ofﬁcial patronage. It remained
for the grandsons, in view of a vastly extended country and a
mighty swelling of ofﬁcial numbers, in view of greater tyranny
on the part of masters and greater dependence on the part of
subordinates, to strike an effective blow for manhood tenure,
merit term, non-partisan place, and only patriotic fealty. The
anti-feudal doctrine is that public ofﬁce is a solemn trust, whose
most important condition is to choose the best possible men for
the different places. And this has found sanction in our highest
judicial tribunal, whose language is, “ The theory of our govern-
ment is that all public stations are trusts, and that those clothed
with them are to be animated in the discharge of their duties
solely by considerations of right, justice, and the public good.” *
THE FIRST REFORM—We have seen that by 1853 civic
appointments in England were based on competitive tests made
through open examination. In that year a law was passed by
our Congress dividing the Clerks of the Treasury, War, Navy,
Interior, and Post-ofﬁce Departments into classes, and declaring
that “ no clerk shall be appointed until found qualiﬁed by a board
of three examiners.” In 1855 the act was extended to the State
Department. This was known as the “pass examination.” It
was not necessarily open nor at all competitive. In practice, it
was no examination at all. We speedily fell away from the
policy which the law was designed to establish, and were soon
as much. at sea as before.
THE SECOND REFORM In 1868 Mr. Jenckes, chairman
of the Joint Select Committee on Retrenchment, presented in
his report a mass of information bearing on the workings of the
reformed civil service in England. His speeches on the subject
* Trist m. Child, 21 Wallace R. 450.
16a CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.
arrested the attention of Congress and led to much newspaper
discussion. His efforts were crowned by the act of 187 I author-
izing inquiry into our civil service. President Grant appointed
a commission for the purpose. A set of rules governing future
subordinate appointments were proposed by the Commission
and accepted by the President. _They were to take effect Ian. I,
1872. '
Meanwhile interesting history was being made in the New
York Custom House. To anticipate it a little, it had been
found that from 1858 to 1861 the Democratic Collector had re-
moved 389 out of 690 appointees. Subsequently, in three years,
a Republican Collector removed 830 out of 903, and another,
in sixteen months, had removed 510 out of 892. Every re-
moval involved a long and demoralizing struggle for place. The
feeling that any day might be his last in civic service, and that
merit could count as nothing against political favor or intrigue
toward securing retention or insuring promotion,’ repelled the
most'worthy and correspondingly destroyed the manhood and
reduced the efﬁciency of those who were successful. The same
results were manifest in the Post-ofﬁce, and they were visible
in all the large cities containing elaborate Federal ofﬁces. Gov-
ernor Cornell declared that one-third of the ofﬁcials of New
York could be mustered out with advantage to the public. The
late President Garﬁeld said, in Congress, that under a judicious
civil service the government could be carried on at one-half its
usual cost. President Arthur became Collector in 1871. He
was soon convinced that a stable tenure was absolutely essential
to a reform of the customs administration. In ﬁve years he re-
moved only 144 ofﬁcials, and certiﬁed to the Secretary of the
Treasury, Nov. 23, 1877, that “ Permanency in ofﬁce, which, of
course, prevents removal except for cause, and secures promo-
tion based upon good conduct and efﬁciency, is an essential
element of correct civil service,” a conviction he reiterated
in his letter of acceptance as Vice-President, in which he says:
“The tenure of ofﬁce should be stable. Positions of responsi-
bility should, so far as practicable, be ﬁlled by the promotion of
worthy and efﬁcient ofﬁcers.”
CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. a
The system proposed by the Grant Commission was based on
merit, to be ascertained, in a limited way, by competitive examin-
ation. It was not received warmly in ofﬁcial circles, though it
had the President’s endorsement. It was therefore placed at a.
great disadvantage, though its good effects were clearly apparent.
In 1874 the Commission made a report which showed that, as
far as tried, the system had secured for the service persons of
superior capacity and character, and had tended to exclude un-.
worthy applicants ; that ofﬁcials were more ambitious to acquire
information; that unreasonable solicitation, on the part of appli~
cants and their friends, of the heads of departments had dimin-
ished ; that unworthy persons could be more readily dismissed;
that intriguing pressure for place was less noticeable. The
President concurred with the Commission’s report, and sent a
special message to Congress asking for $25,000 with which to
continue the work, which met with refusal.
That this did not arrest the reform sentiment was shown by
the fact that it exerted a greater inﬂuence in the next Presidential
election than ever before. The platforms of the leading parties
distinctly announced the doctrine that oﬂice was a public trust
and should be administered only with a view to economy and
the highest good, and without reference to partisanship and spoils.
In his inaugural President Hayes said: “I ask the attention of
the public to the paramount necessity of reform in the Civil
Service . . . a reform that shall be radical, thorough and com-
plete—a return to the principles of the founders of the govern-
ment.” Though no general and uniform system of determining
minor appointments was adopted during his administration, it
witnessed, as he was forced along by a growing public senti-
ment, an abatement of the abuse of Congressional dictation of
nominations, the overthrow to a great extent of the custom of
Senatorial control of State patronage, prohibition of political
assessments, and prevention of interference in caucusses and
conventions by Federal ofﬁce-holders. His administration also
witnessed the special application ‘of the merit system, and the
tests provided by competitive examination, to applicants for
place in the New York Custom House and Post-ofﬁce, by which
35
18a CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.
means removals among subordinates for political reasons have
well-nigh ceased, and a much higher, purer and abler service
has been secured. '
The Republican platform of 1880 contained a square accept-
ance of the radical civil service reform announced in President
Hayes’ inaugural. The Democratic platform declared for “a
general and thorough reform of the civil service.” President
Garﬁeld reiterated the sentiments of his predecessor, but the
Congress was very perverse. The elections of 1881 and 1882
were reminders that there was a sentiment abroad which would-
not longer tolerate existing political methods. There were
pending in Congress several bills all looking to civil service re--
- form, the most conspicuous of which was that in the Senate,
introduced by Senator Pendleton, of Ohio. On Dec. 4, 1882,
President Arthur sent in a message urging the passage of this
bill, or some other equally effective. On Jan..16, 1883, it be-
came a law by a large majority of the Congress, and went into
effect July 16, 1883. Since" its passage the Legislatures of
several of the Stateshave had under discussion a similar enact-
ment, and one or two have passed laws looking to reform in
their civil service. _
THE PENDLETON LA VV.—_-The act creates a commission,
composed of three members, appointed by the President and
Senate, to be known as the United States Civil Service Commis-
sion.' They are to provide rules for open competitive examina-
tions for testing the ﬁtness of applicants for the public service.
Their duties are fully laid down in the act, which also pro-
hibits all political assessments, and provides for the appor-
tionment of ofﬁcials among the States in proportion to their
population.
The Commission‘ was duly appointed and published a set of
rules in time to put the law in operation, July 16, 1883. They
divide the subordinate Civil Service of the country into three
classes, excluding, of course, laborers and workmen, to witi
the Department Service at Washington, the Customs Service, the
Postal Service. This division is not made, nor do the rules
apply to cities or places, where the ofﬁcials of any of the last
CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 19a
two classes do not number ﬁfty. Examining boards are created
at certain places, mostly in the large cities, before whom candi-
dates for place must appear for examination. By addressing
these Boards, or the Commission at Washington, any applicant
can ﬁnd out the conditions on which he will be permitted to
enter the contest and the manner of conducting the same. The
examination embraces spelling, penmanship, arithmetic, gram-
mar, geography, history and the principles of our government.
The candidates are graded. All falling below an average of
sixty-ﬁve for all the subjects fail. All securing an average of
sixty-ﬁve or over are booked with the Commission for appoint-
ment. When a clerk is wanted in any place to which the law
applies, the names of the four highest on the list are sent to the
chief ofﬁcial, who Selects one. And So with other vacancies.
Examinations are held once a year, or oftener if necessary. The
clerk accepted or selected is a probationer for Six months. If
then acceptable his appointment becomes complete. Promotions
are provided for. There is no inquiry into the politics or reli-
gion of the applicant, but he must give certiﬁed assurance of his
moral and physical character. .
Though the system thus devised is new and somewhat ‘crude
it promises to develop into substantial reform. The Commis-
'sion have made one report on its results, which is altogether
favorable. It cannot be doubted that the reform has a substan-
tial hold on the higher Sentiment of the country and a secure
lodgment in the better judgment of political parties. That it
will go on in this country, as in England, till it becomes a sub—
stitute for a system both heartless and rotten is the conviction
of its originators and friends. What monarchy ripened without
example and. against caste, a Republic should perfect beneath
the rays of experience and amid the encouragement of a pro-
nounced sentiment.
AR G UMEN T S FOR—Observe, the reform thus started does
not bear on elective ofﬁcials, nor on Cabinet ofﬁcers, nor yet on
a long line of minor appointees who may be called heads of the
sub or smaller departments both at Washington and throughout
_the country. All these are as yet recognized as belonging to
20a CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.
the political side of civic administration. The reform is not so
far on as to attempt to say where the line of separation shall be
drawn between purely civil and purely political administration.
Nor does the reform go to the bottom of the Civil Service.
Where, say a Collector of Customs or a Postmaster has only a
few clerks he is supposed to know sufﬁciently about the ability
of each to judge of their ﬁtness. The reform only begins when
the clerks number ﬁfty, and it applies to the great intermediate
body of clerical employés or minor civic ofﬁcials. Bearing these
facts in mind, and remembering what room there is yet for the
extension of the reform system, the arguments relied on by its
friends are : (1) Public ofﬁce is a trust to be managed on business
and not on political principles. (2) It is the right of the people
to have the worthiest citizens in the public service for the gen—
eral welfare. (3) Personal merit is the highest claim upon
ofﬁce. (4) Party government and the salutary effect of party
activity are purer and more efﬁcient under a merit system of
ofﬁce. (5) A partisan system of appointments and removals
enfeebles and debases government by parties. (6) Patronage in
the hands of legislators usurps the executive function and in-
creases the expense of administration. (7) Non-partisan and
actual ﬁtness for public place can only be ascertained by compe-
tent examination. (8) Competitive examination ends partisan
coercion and ofﬁcial favoritism, and, as has been proved, gives
the best public servants. (9) Such methods leave to parties
their true function and use. (10) The new system has raised
the ambition and increased the self-respect of civic ofﬁcials.
(II) Open competition is as fatal to bureauocracy as it is to
patronage, nepotism and spoils. ( 12) The merit system raises
the character of the entire subordinate service, tends to economic
administration, invigorates patriotism, heightens the standard of
statesmanship and causes political leaders to look for support to
better sentiments and a higher intelligence. ( I 3) It is a standing
rebuke to imbecility and indolence. (14) It is‘ a return to the
constitutional methods of the early Presidents and statesmen
(I 5) It is as practical in a Republic as under any other form of
government. (16) Elections would turn only on questions of
CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 21a
pure men and pure measures, and not on the ability of politicians
to secure places for themselves or their friends. .
ARGUMENTS AGATNS Party ascendency would
be jeopardized if public patronage were not turned to its account.
(2) Party success at the polls means preference for its men and
measures, which carries by implication the right to partisan dis-
tribution of the spoils. (3) Administration can only do the will
of the majority effectively through its political friends. (4) A
line cannot be drawn between purely civic and purely political
administration. (5) Patronage is an inducement for parties to
exist and continue in active work. (6) The holder of political
place should contribute to keeping his place. (7) Political
activity is proper, and there is always a necessity for men trained
in politics and political methods, who cannot be had if the in-
ducement of patronage is removed. (8) Civil Service tends to
bureauocracy; that is, to a class of ofﬁcials who would grow
indifferent and insolent if their places were permanent.
By 1888 the Pendleton Civil Service Act had been in opera-
tion for ﬁve years. It had been interpreted and put into practice
by a very liberal-minded Republican Commission, created under
the provisions of the law. The results had no doubt been favor-
ably received in so far as the verdict of personal ﬁtness on the
part of an applicant, ascertained by the open, competitive exam-
inations instituted by the Commission and carried out by local
subordinate boards of examiners, was concerned. It placed the
applicant beyond the favoritism of members of Congress and
others in power, and in many instances was a positive relief from
importunity for place. But it was seen that it must remodel the
civil serviceiof the country very slowly, for as long as the party
which enacted the law was in power and the places were all ﬁlled
with its adherents there would be few vacancies aside from those
brought about by natural causes. Perhaps it was this feature
of the system which reconciled the Republican majority to its
operations, and the Democratic minority as well, so long as it
was a minority. .
A real test of the efﬁcacy of the system could come only with
a change in the relative attitude of political parties. Such a
. 22a CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.
change came about on March 4, 188 5, with the inauguration of
President Cleveland. The distinctive friends of Civil Service
Reform were not daunted by this change, for they had given
their support to Mr. Cleveland as against Mr. Blaine. They
found in the Democratic national platform of 1884 almost as
strong a commitment to a civil service policy as in the Republi-
can national platform. They had seen Mr. Cleveland take high
ground in favor of such a policy during his term as Governor of
New York State. They had drawn from him an explicit letter,
which they looked upon as his personal platform, in which he
emphatically repudiated the Democratic traditions respecting
ofﬁce-holding, and substituted for the offensive Jacksonian doc-
trine, “ To the victors belong the spoils,” the more modern, purer
' and safer principle, “ Public ofﬁce is a public trust” to be ad-
ministered solely for the beneﬁt of the eestuz' gue trusts—the
people. But while-they had no misgivings as to the success of
the system even under the severe strain it was about to feel, the
politicians of every school, and students of political philosophy
as well, looked anxiously upon the situation, some with the hope
that a system so full of promise might have a fair trial at the
hands of the triumphant party; others, and perhaps a large ma-
jority, with the sincere wish that it might suffer total wreck on
partisan shoals. The temptation to an incoming party, especially
after it had been for a long time in the minority, to operate, per—
vert or destroy the system sufﬁciently to enable it to secure at
least a fair share of the public patronage affected by it would be
very great indeed. Could it withstand the temptation P This
was hardly to be expected, notwithstanding the platform pledge
and the bold position assumed by the President, for the truth
had gradually worked its way to the surface that while Civil
Service Reform as atheory was very sublimated and beautiful——
a something before which parties could afford to take off their
hats and bow respectfully—it had not indoctrinated the rank and
ﬁle so as to make them seriously thoughtful about either its per-
manent existence or unpartisan operation; and as to a certain
class of political leaders it was a stumbling-block and positive
offence. ' ' ‘
CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. 23a
But how could the civil service system, yet youthful, crude
and little understood, be turned to the account of the dominant
party without doing violence to its plainest provisions? It was
soon perceived that it was a system all of whose positive provi-
sions related to appointments to ofﬁce. None of it related to
removals from ofﬁce, except upon sufﬁcient cause. The head of -
a Department might not appoint a clerk except upon open ex-
amination by the Examining Board and sufﬁcient qualiﬁcation
established thereby, but he might remove every ofﬁcial under
him if he could allege cause. The cause contemplated by the
act was such as inattention, ineﬂﬁciency, immorality, etc. ; inquiry
into political or religious beliefs of an applicant or incumbent being
prohibited. But by enlarging the old time doctrine that a party
could not carry on the government in a way to suit the majority
so long as it was hampered by retainers of opposite politics, it
was easy to invent a cause for removal which should have some
show of plausibility, even if it did not answer as a complete ex-
cuse. Therefore to causes of a mental, moral or physical char-
acter was added that of partisans/zip. But as parz‘zlsanskzjn in its
general sense meant no more than the harmless exercise of such
a belief as the law prohibited inquiry about, it had to be quali-
ﬁed by the word “offensive.”
“ Offensive partisanship,” therefore, would become the key to
unlock the civil service enigma. In the hands of the head of a
Department it would prove a besom with which a clean sweep
could be made, if such seemed desirable.‘ Other devices could
be joined with it, such as the lowering of salaries so as to create
grades of ofﬁcials outside of the civil service rules. Mr. Cleve-
land changed the political complexion of the Commission by
making it Democratic, and by the appointment of at least one
Commissioner who was hostile to the law and the system. In
other respects he stood up ﬁrmly, though all too brieﬂy, for his
personal and party pledges to the Civil Service Reformers and
the people, but it was evident to all political observers that in
spite of him there was a ﬁerce party surge backward toward the
“spoils system,” and one which would either carry him along
with it or leave him behind in high and dry party alienation.
24a CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.
So all things worked toward a quiet, gradual, but none the less
sure, avoidance of the civil service intent. The law was not vio-
lated in a way to provoke bitter criticism, but instead of proving
a buttress, as its framers supposed, it turned out to be only a
gilded superstructure heldv up by wide-apart pillars between
which ingenious politicians might ‘drive and turn a coach and
four without fear of collision and break-down. Any summing
up of the situation at the end of the third or fourth year after the
political revolution of 188 5 would show an aggregate of results
different in nothing from the “good old times,” when it was
deemed a party right to smite an opponent “ hip and thigh” and
a party virtue to prefer a friend, however common-place, to an
enemy, be he ever so capable. By 1888 fully 50 per cent. of the
places within the Civil Service act had witnessed removal and
appointment for considerations other than those speciﬁed in the
act; and the friends of the system may well wonder that this per
cent. was so small, when the drift, as to removals and appoint-
ments in general, was so pronounced as to make the following
ﬁgures possible: 2,000 Presidential postmasters removed out of
2,379; 40,000 fourth-class postmasters removed out of 52,609;
32 foreign ministers out of 33; 100 collectors of customs out of
1 1 1 ; 32 surveyors of customs out of 32; 34 appraisers out of 36;
84 collectors of internal revenue out of 85 ; 65 district attorneys
out of 70; 22 Territorial judges out of 30; 16 pension agents out
of 18; 16 surveyor-generals out of 16 ; 190 land ofﬁcers out of
224 ; 51 Indian agents out of 59; 79 special agents out of 83.
With these facts in his possession the reader can readily make
up his own mind as to whether the underlying principles of Civil
Service Reform are more securely established to-day than ﬁve
years ago when, after twenty years of agitation, they were ﬁrst
incorporated into statute law.
POLYGAMY.
OLYGAMY presents an intricate problem. There is
almost a solid moral and political sentiment against it,
. but the problem is of such a nature as to escape this
and still avoid solution. The truth is there is yet a
great deal to be learned about it. After one dwells upon
it long enough to begin to see that it has ingenious, if not plau-
sible, religious support, his wits are taxed to the uttermost to
know whether a direct and heroic remedy is easy or possible.
It is or is not polygamy; that is, it is or is not a crime amenable
to law and removable by statute, just as it is or is not an
essential part of a religion—Mormonism. The moment it
chooses to sit under the panoply of Mormonism, or use it for an
aegis, it boldly claims the exemption from interference accorded
to other religions under Article I. of the. Amendments to
the Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof.” .
HIST OR Y OF MORMONfSM—According to Mormon
belief, the Lord appeared to Joseph Smith, then fourteen, at
Manchester, New York, in 1820. Seven years later an angel
delivered to him certain metal plates on which were engraved in
Egyptian characters the Book of Mormon. Two transparent
stones were with the plates, by whose help Smith translated the
characters into English. The book professed to be an inspired
record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of America.
Its style is that of the Old Testament Chronicles. In 1829, John "
the Baptist, and, shortly after, Peter, James and John appeared to
Smith and a follower, Oliver Cawdrey, and consecrated them to
the priesthoods of Aaron and Melchizedek. The church was
' 25a
26a ' POL-YGAMY.
ﬁrst organized at Seneca, N. Y., 1830. The next year the church
was removed to Missouri. They called themselves Latter-Day
Saints. Driven from place to place in Missouri, they were
ﬁnally expelled from the State in 1838, and took refuge in
Illinois, where they founded the town of Commerce. Here
also they were the frequent victims of mob violence, and their
town of Nauvoo was raided, resulting in the killing of Smith
and his brother. Brigham Young, Smith's successor as Prophet,
resolved to lead the community, which all the while throve amid
persecution, into a new Canaan west of the great desert and in
the recesses of the Rocky Mountains. In 1846 the Mormon
migrants were at Council Bluff, where in compliance with a call
of the Federal government they sent a battalion of 500 men to
the Mexican war. In the spring of 1847, Young with 143
converts started for the new Canaan,to be followed later by a
train of 700 wagons and the main body of pioneers. The
journey of 1,000 miles, through a country as little known and
as hostile as the Arabian desert was to the Jews under Moses,
was made with success. They pitched their camp at the mouth
of the cation where Salt Lake City now stands. The new
Canaan was anything but a land of promise. Lieutenant Sher-
man with a band of surveyors nearly perished on the shores of
Salt Lake in 1850 for want of water. The Latter Day Saints
were, in their imagination, the Israelites of old. They had ﬂed
from Egyptian persecution, crossed a trackless desert, met with
miraculous preservations. In their Canaan, to the south, was
Lake Utah, their Sea of Galilee. Flowing north was their Jor-
dan, which emptied into the Great Salt Lake, their Dead Sea.
The site selected for their new Zion was Jerusalem surrounded
by mountains. The Indians were Philistines. They were hardy,
industrious, frugal and enthusiastic. Cut off from outward food
supply, they planted for themselves and fed rather than fought
the Indians. They built, redeemed the "soil by irrigation, and
throve. I _
By 18 5 7 they were a little independent State, though within a
Territory organized as early as 1850. False knowledge of the
situation drew the ire of the Federal government. An army
POLYGAMY. ' 27.,
was sent out to crush them or compel allegiance to the central
sovereignty. This monumental junketing tour was a farce.
The Mormons were not the enemies they were supposed to be. '
The troops found nobody to ﬁght. The money, arms and pro-
visions they introduced helped to advance the struggling
colony. Their coming was regarded by the Mormons as a
providence.
The opening of the Union Paciﬁc Railway in 1870 connected
Utah with the outside world. Since then the Mormon country
has rapidly developed. Brigham Young died in 1877, and the
community lost the prophet, priest and president under whose
rule Salt Lake Valley had been transformed from a desolate,
uninhabited wilderness to a richly cultivated and fertile land,
the home of a prosperous, contented people numbering over
100,000 Souls.
THEIR CONDITION—In settling the question of polyg-
' amy or even in entertaining opinion respecting it, care must be
taken to disabuse our minds of the thought that Mormons are
outcasts or heathens. The census shows that they have long
since reached the respectability which numbers give. Utah has
more people than any other Territory, more than Nevada, and
as many as Delaware. Mormon colonies exist in Arizona, New
Mexico, Idaho and Colorado. Their capital is the ﬁnest town
of its size in the West. It is literally embowered in gardens and
orchards, and streams of ﬂowing water refresh its streets. Their
villages and farm-houses are models of neatness and beauty.
They have built 10,000 miles of irrigating canals, and turned
every mountain stream to the account of agriculture. They built
400 miles of the Union Paciﬁc Railway, and 600 miles of the ﬁrst
transcontinental telegraph line, besides 500 miles of local rail-
road and 1,500mi1es of telegraph. ‘They have extensive manu-
factures. They mine largely, and cultivate fruits and the cereals
with success. Their farms are small and the price of improved
land high. They have a good school system, and over 400
schools, with an average daily attendance of 44 per cent. of the
school population. The per cent. of i_lliterates is lower than that
for the United States at large. They have a university, a female
seminary and a normal school.
28a . POLYGAMY.
It is universally admitted by the Gentile population of Salt
Lake City that the Mormon people are honest, straightforward
and faithful to business contracts. They are temperate beyond
any Christian people, temperance in some instances being carried
to abstinence from alcohol, tobacco and tea. Under a pure
Mormon regime drinking saloons and other places of vice were
prohibited. Not a dozen of the 200 saloons now in Utah are
kept by professing Mormons, and these are held in disgrace.
Of‘ the population of Salt Lake City 75 per cent. is Mormon
and 25 per cent. non-Mormon, yet the arrests in 1881 were:
Mormons. Non - Mormons.
Men and boys. . . . . . 163 Men and boys . . . . . . . . 657
Women . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Women............... 194
Totals-............ 169 3T5?
A, census of the prisoners in the winter of 1881 showed in the
city prison twenty-nine convicts, and in the county prison six,
all non-Mormon. Out of ﬁfty-one in the penitentiary, only ﬁve
were Mormons, and two of these were there for polygamy, and
of 125 in the lock-ups only eleven were Mormons, some for
polygamy. Says a Mormon publication in 1878: “Oaths, im-
precations, blasphemies, invectives, expletives, blackguardism,
were not heard in Utah till after the advent of the anti-Mormon
element, nor till then did we have litigation, drunkenness, har-
lotry, political and judicial deviltries, gambling and kindred
enormities.” Among the Mormons all are equal. From the
President down it is the duty of every man to work for a living.
This was the Puritan idea, and this Captain Smith enjoined on the
Virginia colonists by his edict,“ he that does not work may not
eat.” Outside of their religion, therefore, the Mormon Com-
munity is a pious and socialistic organization, if by Socialism in
practical form is meant a community where each may enjoy the
beneﬁt‘ of labor and each labor to live, where the weak are not
trampled upon, and the unfortunate in the battle of life are
cared for by the community. In all the respects spoken of they
resemble a dozen other communities toward which greater toler-
’ ance exists, though not a whit more moral nor less- peculiar.
T HE MORMON CREED.—With the exception of polygamy
POLYGAMY. 29a
the Mormon doctrines closely resemble those of other Chris-
tians. They rest their claims for non-interference and protection
on the fact that theirs is not only a religion, but a truly Chris-
tian religion. Their Church is the “Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints.” Its leading articles are:
“ We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in his Son Jesus Christ, and in the
Holy Ghost.
“ We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s
transgression.
“ We believe that through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved by
obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
“We believe that these ordinances are: First, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ;
Second, Repentance; Third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins;
Fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
“ We believe that a man must be called of God by prophecy, and by laying on
of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the gospel and administer the
ordinances thereof.
“We believe in the same organization that existed in the primitive church, viz.,
apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, etc.
“ We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, inter-
pretation of tongues, etc.
“ We believe the Bible to be the Word of God, as far as it is tI'uIlSlQtCd correctly;
we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God.
“ We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and that He
will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God.
“ We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten
Tribes; that Zion will be built upon this continent; that Christ will reign person-
ally upon the earth, and that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiac
glory.
“ We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates
of our conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how,
where or what they may.
“We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates, in
obeying, honoring and sustaining the law. _
“We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and‘ in doing
good to all men; indeed, we may say we follow the admonitions of Paul : We be-
. lieve all things, we hope for all things; we have endured many things, and hope to
be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good
report, or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.”
Respecting polygamy the Mormon Confession of Faith merely
declares: “ That marriage, whether monogamic or polygamic, is
honorable in all, when such marriage is contracted and carried
out in accordance with the law of God.”
30a POLYGAMY.
The Church admits thefreedom of individual action. There
is no compulsion beyond public opinion. Apostacy is not a
crime, nor is it attended with proscription. Members pay tithe
as among the Hebrews, and afterwards a tenth of their increase
for the advancement of God’s work. The tithes are devoted to
the relief of the poor and needy, the building of the Temple,
and the conversion and transportation of immigrants. The ofﬁ-
cials are the ﬁrst presidency, with three members; second, the
twelve apostles; third, the councils of seventy; of elders, com-
posed of ninety-six members ; of priests, forty-eight ; of teachers,
twenty-‘four; of deacons, twelve. The ﬁrst presidency and the
twelve apostles rule the whole Church. The Territory is divided
into twenty-two “Stakes of Zion,” each having its council of
seventy, of elders, priests, teachers and deacons. All are elected
annually. Missionaries are sent to all quarters of the globe. A
missionary goes without salary or travelling expenses. If with-
out means of his own, he must support himself and work his
way in his ﬁeld during his mission, which covers from one to
two years. From 2,000 to 3,000 Mormon immigrants arrive in
Utah annually, as the result ‘of missionary solicitation. They
come from all the countries of Europe, but latterly largely from
Germany and Sweden and Norway. ' The Central Church is the
Tabernacle at Salt Lake City, a monument of engineering skill
and choice workmanship, 250 feet long by‘ I 50 wide. Near it is
the Temple, which has been under process of erection for thirty
years, and will take four more for completion. It is of hewn
stone, unpretentious in design, and is destined to be a per-
manent reminder of what is deemed an imperishable faith. As
a church organization Mormonism is closely and adroitly ce-
mented. It is calculated to gather and hold with a vigor by no
means common, especially in a ﬁeld so isolated as Utah, or
wherever the enthusiasm of religion assumes, as a matter of
necessity it may be, to make partnership with the social and
business sides of life. It is organization all through, and religion
all through, from the least to the highest interest. As a force,
it has fervor and coherency. It is questionable whether any
other organization could have made the same conquests over
POLYGAMY. ~- 31“
rugged and forbidding nature in the same time, or could have
maintained so steady a front amid apparently insurmountable
obstacles.
POL YGAM Y PROPER—This was not an original Mormon
practice, though the creed, as we have seen, does not prohibit it.
Reverence for the Bible and respect for its exact letter led to its
sanction theoretically. Circumstances led to its general adop-
tion. The drafting of 500 men from the converts on their way
to Utah, thereby leaving the women in a majority, or without
legal protectors, may have suggested the propriety of its actual
practice. The necessity for a more rapid propagation of the
Species than the monogamic marriage afforded, and the desira-
bility of patriarchal families in the new Canaan, may have
hastened the growth of the practice. Once fully embraced, it is
easy to see that it must be defended as a duty, for it concerned
the social weal and all domestic happiness and comfort. They
therefore pointed to the Old Testament examples. They asked
what was meant by the great excess of females in the Eastern
States and in all full and ripe communities. They declared it
to be a natural remedy for the evils of prostitution, and a cure
for marital inﬁdelity. They dropped the term polygamy as
offensive, and digniﬁed the estate as one of “plural marriage,”
a contract for earth and‘sky, time and eternity. They threw
around this plural and celestial marriage all the solemnity of
monogamic ceremony, and lest its practice should become un-
worthy or dangerous, they limited the privilege of undertaking
it to the virtuous, honest and upright, whom the bishop and the
president of the stake should certify as worthy. They gave it a
paradisiac glamor like the Mohammedans, and as one well-edu-
cated Mormon was heard to say, “ You cannot take your money,
your railway or mining stocks into the next world with you;
but our marriage is not only for life but for eternity, and we
shall have our wives and our children with us, and so make a
good start in the world to come.”
If the vows of plural marriage are as sacredly taken as those
of monogamic marriage, and as sacredly observed, both of which
Mormons declare them to be, there is a possibility that, in their
320 ‘ POLYGAMY.
hands and under their practices, it is less objectionable than the
polygamous estate of the ancient jews or that of modern Mo-
hammedanism. It is certainly true that they regard adultery,
fornication and bigamy as among the abominable evils, and visit
on any member known to be guilty of them the penalty of ex-
communication; that is, he is cut off from the communion of
the saints and all fellowship in the Church. President Taylor
boldly asserts “that there is not to-day a more virtuous com—
munity in the world, or one where female chastity is more
highly regarded or more vigorously protected.”
Mormons take great pains to controvert the popular notion
that the plural or polygamous marriage is illegal. They say
the Constitution does not touch the subject, but leaves all matters
relating to marriage to the people of the States. They do not
admit the right of Congress to regulate these matters in the
Territories, but claim that they are of purely local concernment,
and of right belong to the Territorial Legislative Assemblies;
and in this connection they point to the organic act of Utah,
“ That the legislative power of said Territory shall extend to all
rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution
of the United States and the provisions of this act.” Resting
on this they further claim that Congress, acting according to the
genius of our institutions, cannot interfere with matters in the
. Territories, which in the States are left to the States, and that it
should not pass a law for a Territory which a State Legislature
cannot pass for its State. When Congress vindicates itself for
attempting to regulate social affairs in the Territories by point-
ing to British interference in India for the suppression of the
suttee (widow burning), the Mormons answer that such inter-
ference was justiﬁed because the suttee brought about destruc~
tion of life. But they say polygamy means the propagation and
perpetuation of the human species under the same solemn forms
as monogamy, and they turn the argument on their opponents
by showing that Great Britain not only tolerates, but has legis-
lated to protect in her Indian institutions, upwards of 240,000,000
polygamous subjects.
Mormons are equally sensitive about the error of confounding
‘-
POLYGAMY. 33a
bigamy with plural marriage. -_-;They, in common with all per-
sons, look upon bigamy as a grievous crime, whose essence is
fraud of the very worst type—ﬁrst vows broken, ﬁrst wife de-
serted, second vows falsiﬁed, second wife betrayed, ofﬁciating
ofﬁcers deceived. In plural marriage there is no such ﬂagrant
deception. All the parties know it to be a doctrine of the
Church, and all accept the obligations with that understanding.
Fi'rst, second, third and all subsequent wives, together with all
interested in the arrangement, are acquainted with previous and
existing facts, have a full conception of the nature of the estate,
and supposably believe in its religious rectitude, its social and
domestic advantages, its inducements in this and the next world.
The obligations of the man extend to all his wives alike, and to
all his children. He is expected to meet them all. That he
does do so may not be fully proved by the absence of waifs and
strays in a strictly Mormon community, nor any more by
absence of a stream of children gravitating unerringly toward the
poor house—Mormons have no such institution—but wherein
he fails, the Church or system comes to his relief with its en-
dowed charities, administered through bishops and various soci-
eties.
The legal status of husband and wife under the plural mar-
riage is thus set forth by Geo. Cannon, formerly Delegate to
Congress from Utah: “There is an impression among the unin-
formed that the man who enters into patriarchal marriage in
Utah has but little, if any, responsibility connected with it; that
upon his partners rest all the burdens and unpleasant features
of the relationship; that they, in becoming his wives, become
the creatures of his will, and that, therefore, their civil rights
are interfered with. This view. is wholly incorrect. It is the
women, under the system of patriarchal marriage, who have
liberty and not the men. When once marriage has taken place
between the parties, be the woman ever so poor or friendless,
ever so much an unprotected stranger in ‘the land, the man who
knows her takes upon him a life-long obligation to care for
her and the fruit of the union. For a man toseek for a divorce
is almost unheard of: the liberty upon this point rests with the
86
34a POLYGAMY.
woman; and as regards a separation, if" her position should
become irksome, or distasteful to her even, and she should de-
sire a separation, not only is the man bound to respect the ex-
pressal of her wish to that effect, but‘ he is bound also to give
her and her offspring a proportionate share of his whole property.
They are no longer under his yoke; but while he and they live,
they have a claim upon him from which he is never completely
absolved.”
Again, Mormons are touched with the charge, inherent in
much of the Congressional action respecting them, to the effect
that they are not competent to manage the local affairs of their
Territory in a proper way. They claim that they are honorable,
peaceful, industrious, intelligent and religious citizens of the
United States, and as such entitled to the rights and privileges
accorded to the same class of citizens elsewhere. They repudiate
all thought of hostility to our institutions, or of an attempt to
establish a hierarchy unrepublican in spirit and inimical to. the
central government. They point with much pride to the charac-
ter of their Territorial legislation and invite a comparison of it
with that of other Territories, or even States. And when such
legislation is impartially examined much will be found in it that
is commendable. There is no Territorial debt, and the tax rates
are low. In 1882 Utah petitioned Congress for admission into
the Union as a State. The Constitution, agreed upon in a nine
days’ Convention of seventy-two delegates, was liberal on all
political, social and religious questions, and might safely be taken
as a model by any of the Territories. It provided that the right
to worship God according to the dictates of conscience should
never be infringed; that no interference with liberty of con-
science should be permitted; that no religious test or prop-
erty qualiﬁcation should be required for any ofﬁce of public
trust, or vote at any election, and that no person should be in-
competent to testify on account of religious belief; that every
citizen of the age of twenty-one should be entitled to vote at
State elections; that women were citizens and might not only
vote‘ but hold elective ofﬁces, being disqualiﬁed only as judges,
jurors and members of the executive department. Liberal as
POLYGAMY. 35,,
all this was, Congress refused the application, though the vote
of the Territory on the Constitution was well-nigh unanimous,
being 27,814 for, to 498 against.
What has thus far been said of the peculiar institution of
Mormonism and of that blot upon it known as polygamy, will,
it is hoped, serve to give the reader an idea of it when viewed in
its most favorable light. The data used has been drawn largely
from Mormon sources, or from writers adjudged to be without
prejudices and impartial. The object in thus presenting it is to
avoid the charge often made by Mormons, and too often with
truth, that there is a disposition abroad among anti-Mormons to
.misrepresent them. There is nothing gained by this. No so-'
lution of the Serious problem of polygamy can prove satisfactory
that proceeds on false information or false premise. Nor can
the government do justice to itself or to that overwhelming
monogamic and Christian sentiment of the country, if in dealing
with what is deemed the odious or criminal side of a religious
institution it indiscriminately and cruelly crushes all its possi-
bilities of doing good. _
C ON GRESSZONAL LEGTSLA T [ON—The ﬁrst anti-Po—
lygamy law was passed in 1862. It simply disfranchised those
who had contracted=plural or bigamous marriages. It was of
no practical use. Only a small per cent. of Mormons were, and
are, in the polygamic estate. The next important measure was
the “ Poland Polygamy Bill,” which passed the Forty-third
Congress, First Session, 1874. It created a District Court for
the Territory, and in addition to the disqualiﬁcations of the
‘former acts, excluded polygamous persons from the jury box
when bigamy cases were being tried. Like all other acts thus
far it failed to have any perceptible good effect. Meanwhile
public sentiment became more urgent. Polygamy was de—
nounced in many of the political platforms. In 1882 the cele-
brated Edmunds Act was passed. It was by far the most radical
step the Government had yet taken. It deﬁned polygamy and
provided for its punishment. It laid down a code of criminal
procedure applicable to the trial of polygamous cases. It took
away the elective franchise from polygamists, male and female.
36a POLYGAMY.
It provided a commission of ﬁve persons, appointive by the
President and Senate, to enforce the provisions of the act. It
was thought to be a well-digested and effective act. In its
practical application it has fallen as short as the others, though
it has served better than all others to show the country the
intricacies and true inwardness of the Mormon problem. Its
constitutionality is now being'contested before the Supreme
Court. The Commission under it succeeded in disfranchising
some 16,000 polygamic electors, male and female, but the
monogamic Mormons still constitute an overwhelming majority
of the voters, and control Utah public sentiment as much as
ever. .
Other bills have been conceived, and are now pending, look-
ing to a still more heroic treatment of the situation. But many
of our best statesmen despair of this species of legislative
remedy. It is not, thus far, apparent that the true seat of the
cancer has been reached. Mormonism is not seemingly dis-
couraged. On the contrary it is, if anything, more ingenious
and deﬁant than ever. It is, in all probability, not unlike other
religions, and especially those of a fanatical type, which court
rather than dread persecution, and thrive rather than die under
it. Taking the views of President Arthur.as a criterion, some
more direct and far-reaching remedy must be devised. All
previous surgery has been too tame—nothing more than
coquetry with a grave situation. He said in his last message,
December, 1883, “I am convinced that polygamy has become
so strongly entrenched in the Territory of Utah that it is proﬁt-
less to attack it with any but the stoutest weapons which Consti-
tutional legislation can fashion. I favor therefore the repeal of
the act upon which the present government of the Territory
depends, the assumption by the National Legislature of the
entire political control of the Territory, and the establishment of
a commission with such powers and duties as shall be delegated
to it by law.”
SENTIMENYi—It is likely that this conviction and these
recommendations of the President are the beginning of a new
erder of thought and action respecting polygamy. They cer-
POLYGAMY. ‘ 37a
tainly reﬂect the ideas of a large and respectable class, who are
thoroughly tired of piecemeal attack upon an institution which
they regard as opposed to the spirit of the age and dangerous
to morality and religion. The merit of the plan would consist
in its attempt to undermine the genius of the institution. This
was partly the merit of the Edmunds law, whose central thought
was to prefer Mormon monogamists, in matters of ofﬁce and
administration, to Mormon polygamists, Well knowing that a
majority were monogamists. But this preference for mono-
gamists did not disparage polygamists at all. On the contrary
they were prouder of the fact that they “lived their religion”
amid disqualiﬁcation. Moreover the discrimination had a
horrible color, for one must ever fail to see how a monogamic
Mormon who upholds, defends and supports an institution
that outrages virtue and the law is any better, or as good,
as the man who, professing a belief, is consistent enough to
practice it. '
As against this heroic method of treatment Mormonism urges
( 1) That it would be the destruction of republican liberty in Utah.
(2) That the destruction of the local Territorial government
would not affect the institution of polygamy, which even now is
not recognized by Territorial laws, nor yet by the civil law, but
which exists ecclesiastically, perpetually and eternally, as part
of a faith, and with the sanction of the Almighty who established
it for the beneﬁt of his people and the fulness of his glory. (3)
That the, government cannot so interfere with the local affairs of
a Territory.
The ﬁrst two objections are argumentative, the last legal.
And as to the last the Constitution says, “Congress shall have
power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations
respecting the Territory or other property belonging to the
United States.” The Supreme Court has said, 1 Peters, 511:
“In legislating for them (Territories) Congress exercises the
combined powers of the general and of a State government.”
Again, 11 Otto, 129: “The Territories are but political sub~
divisions of the outlying dominion of the United States. Their
relation to the general government is much the same as that
38a POLYGAMY.
which counties bear to the respective States, and Congress may
legislate for them as a State does for its municipal organizations.
The organic law of a Territory takes the place of a Constitution
as the fundamental law of local government.” And again, 18
Watt, 317: “ The government of the Territories of the United
States belongs primarily to Congress, and secondarily to such
agencies as Congress may establish for the purpose. During
the term of their pupilage as Territories, they are mere depend—
encies of the United States. ~Their people do not constitute a
sovereign power. All political authority exercised therein is
derived from the general government. Strictly speaking there
is no sovereignty in a Territory but that of the United States
itself. ‘ Crimes committed therein are committed against the
government and dignity of the United States.”
It would appear therefore that the power of the general gov-
ernment to deal with polygamy or any other question in the
Territories is ample. It is only its methods that have been
faulty. The method proposed by the President seems like a
last resort; or, at least, one which involves the experience
derived from the failure of all former methods. Some minds
' favor the application of direct force. This would be brutal in
the extreme, and unworthy the age. Mormons are numerous,
and ﬁxed. They are not hostile, except as their institution on
its polygamic side is not in keeping with the spirit of the time
and law of the realm. The century cannot afford to repeat, in
enlightened America, either the banishment of the Moors from
Spain, or the massacre of the Huguenots in France. Another set
of minds, among which is Mr. Beecher’s, favor letting the Mord
mons alone, and sending teachers and preachers to establish
schools and churches in their midst. They argue that if it is
possible to convert the people of Asia and Africa, it is surely
possible to help Utah by gospel inﬂuences. These forget the
‘fact that Utah is already in possession of as good schools as
there are in the country, and that there already exist there
Episcopal, Catholic, Baptist, Congregational, Presbyterian,
and possibly other churches; but that the latter are dwarfed by
the dominant faith, and converts are less frequent from than to
POLYGAMY. 39a
Mormonism ; and that the former are prosperous only as they
suit the genius of the people who support them. Joaquin
Miller, who‘ has given much study to the problem, is of the
opinion that education will ﬁnally eradicate both polygamy and
Mormonism, but that the Federal government must take the
system of schools into its own hands, and must at the expense
of much time and money make it the most enlightened spot
in the country. Then and then only will the institution wane
and perish.
Mr. Barclay, a member of the English Parliament, who made
a visit to Utah recently, for the purpose of investigating Mormon
institutions, thinks it is quite unnecessary to get angry over
polygamy, or to take any doubtful constitutional measures for
its suppression. He regards its establishment as due to excep-
tional circumstances, which have long since passed away, and
whose results will be gradually overcome by the contact of Utah
with the outer world. He further says, that woman's nature is
not different there from what it is in other parts of the world, and
that with the ballot in her hands, she will speedily settle the
' question of polygamy, in which she is more largely concerned
than the opposite Sex, if it should appear to her that it deprives
her sex of any of its rights, and especially the exclusive right to
a husband.
The (1884) Governor of Utah, E. H. Murray, regards the
entire government of Utah, organized under the act of 1850,
which Created the Territory, as an unlawful government, because
it is not republican in spirit, but a mixed religious and political
institution, designed to perpetuate a hierarchy. He charges that
the Mormons have ingeniously used the republican forms of
government given them under the organic act, and the political
rights therein assured, for the purpose of building and perpetuat-
ing their objectionable faith and protecting their obnoxious prac-
tices, and that in this respect they themselves are violators of
the Constitution and the laws of Congress, none of which sanc-
tion special religions, or can be turned directly to their account.
If this view be correct, and he supports it with much convincing
argument, ‘it is easy to perceive why all efforts to uproot Mor—
40a POLYGAMY.
monism or banish polygamy by penal or prohibitory legislation
have failed, and why they must prove abortive in the future.
They do not touch the genius of the institution, are ‘not down to
its tap-roots. Moreover, if the whole political organization of
the Territory is thus infected with the religion, exists only to
perpetuate it and its practices, is unrepublican in spirit and fact,
and therefore inimical to our institutions, not actively but se-
cretly, it is difﬁcult to conceive of a remedy short of the heroic
one proposed by the President, unless, forsooth, we cease entirely
to make polygamy and the peculiar religion which supports it a
prominent question, and give it over for solution to the agency
of time and circumstance.
A concluding thought is, that the charge made by the Mor-
mons that all this Congressional interference springs from an
unholy desire to get the Territorial ofﬁces and patronage for
Federal appointees, as well as the combined Gentile and Mormon
charge that the failure of remedial legislation is due to unworthy
and inefficient agents appointed to carry it into effect, would be
met by a withdrawal of the entire system of Territorial govern-
ment, and the substitution of a new one to be framed and carried
on under the auspices of an intelligent and impartial Commission
until such time as the people themselves could give a guarantee
that it would be conducted in a republican spirit and according
to the statutes prohibiting polygamy and every class of crime.
The amended Anti-Polygamy bill which passed the Senate
during the ﬁrst session of the Forty-ninth Congress (1886), and
the House during the second session (1887), gave polygamy the
severest blow ever administered by the Government. It made
suffrage and many more essentials of citizenship depend on aban-
donment of the institution by its adherents. Though the en-
forcement of this law results in many cases of conﬁrmed hard-
ship, it bids fair to meet the designs of its framers in the respect
that it draws the lines closely between the so-called ecclesiastical
polity of the Mormons and their political sovereignty and makes
all their valuable qualities of citizenship depend on the latter.
Already its enforcement has brought about a spirit of , compro-
mise on the part of polygamous leaders, and it has (1888) been
POLYGAMY. 41a
given out by a prominent ofﬁcial in the Mormon Church that it
is deemed a wiser policy to renounce temporarily their offensive
dogmas and practices in order the better to seek admission into
the Union as a State. After this desirable privilege has been
conferred they then claim the right as a sovereign State to regu-
late their religious affairs in their own way. While this would
be a shrewd way to avoid that control over Territories which the
Federal Government has always exercised, it would only end in
discomﬁture, for surely the clause in the national Constitution
prohibiting an established religion must, on the principle that
the greater includes the less, prevent a State from setting up a
distinctive church.
The question of polygamy has a further peculiarity. Its ad-
herents are not slow to make political promises and hold out
political inducements. This they can do with much plausibility
because their population and wealth are equal to the demands
of vigorous statehood, but especially because they can play their
promises off against the political conditions existing in other
Territories anxious for admission. Thus if the admission of
any other Territory as a State would be likely to enure to the
political advantage of a political party, Utah claims that it would
be easy for her to make such terms with the opposing party as
would offset that advantage and prove highly beneﬁcial to her-
self. That such a thing could be is a sad commentary on modern
politics; yet the situation is not unlike that of the olden time,
when almost the sole condition for the admission of a State
carved out of territory dedicated to freedom was the simultaneous
admission of one within-whose area slavery could ﬂourish.
PROHIBITION.
' : HAT IT IS.—Temperance in general is as old as morals.
' ' As restricted to intoxicating liquors, it has ever been a
profound sentiment among wise and good men, which
has found oft and eloquent expression. It runs through
every grave philosophy, and is a part of every promi—
nent religion.
The sacred books of the Hindoo urge total abstinence from
intoxicants. One of the Buddhist commandments reads: “ Thou
shalt not drink any intoxicating liquors.” The Koran forbids
the use of wines and liquors, and Mohammedans carry practical
temperance further than any other people. Christianity incul-
cates temperance, but in no dogmatic form, and quite too gen-
erally to escape entirely the charge that Christian peoples are
not essentially temperate. '
No truth is better established nor more universally accepted
than that intemperance is an evil. There can be no successful
denial of the fact that it injures mind and body, depraves the
moral nature, conduces to crime. It is the pronounced enemy
of the home establishment, introducing neglect, discord, estrange-
ment, bankruptcy and want. It is equally the foe of society and
the political state, degrading the one and brutalizing and endan-
gering the other.
Its evil extent is shown in the formidable ﬁgures of pauperism
in this and other countries, four-ﬁfths of which are credited directly


, to strong drink. It is similarly shown in the statistics of crime,
a like proportion of which is attributed to drunkenness. While
these ﬁgures are startling, they convey but a slim impression of
the pernicious results of intemperance. Leaving out the annual
expenditure for drink, which can only be measured by hundreds _
42a
PROHIBITION. 43a
of millions of dollars in this country alone, and which in its most
' favorable light is sheer waste, if not worse; there are deeper
seated, and therefore incomputable, results which men and women
only witness inside of their homes and in the Social circle, and
which are secretly mourned as something worse than death
itself.
of the victim, as something over which he had, or ought to have,
control, and for which he alone was individually responsible, it
was treated as a question of pure morals. Society, relying on
the aid of the church and on such other agencies as were at
command for convincing men of their error, and establishing in
them a control of their passions, rested her case on the argu—
ment of moral suasion. The argument took many forms, was
always earnestly pressed, and led to much practical good. It
certainly elevated the plane of temperance sentiment, fortiﬁed
individuals and communities against drink temptation, and threw
into stronger contrast the viciousness of intemperance and the
virtue of abstinence. To this end it is still effectually used.
But there sprung up the advanced thought, possibly from the
seeds of long experience, that the victim of intemperance was
not the only party responsible for the vice, and that his reforma~
tion, however gratifying personally or socially, was not reaching
So long as intemperance was regarded as simply a misfortune _
a cause which operated beyond him, and was dragging others _
down. In the new light thrown on the situation, it appeared
that if temperance agencies were only to be used for the reforma-
tion of the drunkard, they must have never-ending and'hopeless
employment, for the victim, being weakened in his moral sense,
is to a'certain extent beyond reach of those agencies; or looking
on him from a Scientiﬁc standpoint, he has contracted a disease
(dipsomania), and is a ﬁtter subject for a doctor than a moral
reformer. It further appeared that however high, wide, and
pure the sentiment against, drinking might be built by those
agencies, it was being continually undermined by perpetual in-
ducement to drink provided by the constant manufacture and
general sale of liquors. -
Therefore, under the new thought, temperance got to mean
O
44a PROHIBITION.
vastly more than oratory, pleading and pledges. It left its
prayerful, expostulating, persuasive abode in the domain of re-
sults, and, passing over, took a high, inquiring, critical, threaten-
ing seat in the midst of causes. It grouped the victim, vendor
and manufacturer of liquors in a common category, and chose to
see in them all combined the very power for evil it sought to
smite. This power it would hold responsible as anentirety.
But this was no longer old-fashioned, simple temperance. It
was “prohibition,” and by this name it came to be known. Pro-
hibition does not exclude temperance means and arguments. It
still persuades and instructs, but in addition it invokes political
aid, seeks to secure prohibitive laws through triumphant party
agency. It is political temperance.
Its direct advocates do not as yet embrace all temperance peo-
ple, for prohibition was a virtual breaking of new ground. In a
certain sense it was a bold, forward step in the face of many pre-
judices, and squarely in front of a host of novel and diﬁicult
questions. It was a confession of lack of faith in the absolute
efficacy of time-honored and purely moral cures for a great evil.
It very naturally startled temperance advocates when it asked them
to shake off ancient party affiliations, renounce political creeds,
and join an organization whose cardinal tenet may have had the
charm of novelty, but whose practicability remained to be proved.
It sought political coherency for thoughts which former genera-
tions had declined to associate with the ballot. It invoked ~the
power of direct law against a manufacture which had all along
been considered legitimate, and against an occupation which had a
ranked as an industry. It deﬁed the odium of sumptuary enact-
ments and interference with personal liberty, and claimed all
legislative measures as justiﬁable which society needed and de-
manded for its puriﬁcation and preservation. It provoked con-
stitutional objections and met them by the heroic remedy of con-
stitutional amendments, in the name of peace, prosperity and
morality. It ceased to regard the liquor problem, from the'still
to the almshouse or drunkard’s grave, as one to be treated on
the basis of an evil simply, but charged it up as a crime to be
prevented, abated, or punished by vigorous statutes.
PROHIBITION. 45a
Prohibition had thus much to contend with. But it began
hopefully and worked energetically. Its voice in the beginning
was smaller than that ﬁrst heard against involuntary servitude.
It lost ten years by the civil war and its after questions. It may
have lost more time than this by early attempts to carry too
many reforms at once. It has latterly unloaded its side issues,
and taken a more central aim. Prohibition, to-day, is an un-
qualiﬁed theme.
Is there in it or about it that which so commends it to the
judgment of men as to incline them to make it the basis of a
great party? If all issues were dropped except that of prohibi-
tion, could it triumph on its political merits? Can it ever so
engage the popular mind as to overshadow all other party ques-
tions i’ If triumphant, could it permanently engraft prohibition
on our political system? Is it more to be relied on for effective
temperance reform than the usual non-political agencies P These
questions must be asked, and prohibition must answer. Upon
the answer hangs its future success. It ought to be encouraged
by the growing frequency of the questions, and further by the
fact that, whether they are asked or answered, there is deep
down in the bosom of the masses a sentiment not by any means
averse to a fair test of the prohibitive idea. There is no telling
at what moment this sentiment may respond to some timely and
masterly touch, or break forth in answer to some clarion call.
The recent (1883) movement in Ohio was in the nature of a
revelation. Till then it seemed impossible to keep prohibition
in sight while the two leading parties were angrily wrestling for
mastery. It not only appeared everywhere in the midst of the
din, but. gathered cohorts of every political shade, and doubtless
won at the polls.
HISTORIC GRO WTH--All the States tacitly regarded the
sale of liquors as something outside of the usual line of occupa-
tions. They therefore assumed to regulate the business, that is,
keep it in trustworthy hands, for the safety of the citizen and
society, by granting licenses to approved vendors. This check
was for a long time regarded as sufﬁcient, or, at least, as much
of an interference on the part of the State as the matter seemed
to call for.
46a PROHIBITION.
The beneﬁts of a license system were largely lost by failure to
confer the privilege on responsiblepersons. It is no longer re-
garded as an adequate check, or as a ‘source of safety to indi-
vidual or society. Latterly it has come to be viewed by pro-
hibitionists as an unwarranted legalization of a criminal traffic
by the very power whose duty it is to prevent crime. The
license system and the usual temperance and church agencies
were the restraints on intemperance, till say within ﬁfty years.
In 182 3 Henry-Ware in an address before’ the Massachusetts
Society for the Suppression of Intemperance took the ground
that no power can suppress the evil of intemperance short of the
“ Legislature of the nation.” This is just where the more ad-
vanced prohibitionists stand to-day. They regard State prohibi-
tion as well enough in its way, but ineffective for lack of concur-
rence among the States, and still so if the general government
all the while permits manufacture, importation and transit of
liquors.
Other prominent temperance men, divines and associations
reﬂected the above sentiment for many years. In 1837 the ﬁrst
effort was made to suppress the license laws of a State, in the
Maine Legislature. They were denounced as “ the support and
life of the traffic,” and a committee reported in favor of “the
entire prohibition of all sale of liquors, except for medicine and
the arts.” The next year (1838) Massachusetts prohibited the
sale of liquors in quantities less than ﬁfteen gallons. In the
same year a move was made in the legislatures of New York
and Tennessee to abolish license. Connecticut did'repeal her
license laws and threw stronger guards around the trafﬂc.
LOCAL OPT [ON—This agitation of the question set legis-
lators to thinking. They were not sure of ground much beyond
the old license system. Constituencies were divided. Some
were pronouncedly in favor of change, others not. Out of re-
spect for the popular voice, and in order to shove the responsi-
bility on the voter, the idea of Local Option got to be largely
entertained. From 1840 to 1850 may be called the Local Option
era of temperance. During that period quite a number of the
States enacted that the people of any township, district or county
PROHIBITION. 47,,
might vote on the question of license or no license, and their
decision should be the law till similarly revoked. ‘
This experiment was necessarily brief, though highly useful in
an educational sense. It taught the folly of relying on laws
passed for localities and with no machinery to enforce them ex-
cept that of the State, which was just as likely to be indifferent
or hostile as favorable. It taught, further, the futility of an ex—
periment liable to be interfered with at each annual election, for
local option was simply a convenience, hardly a substantial
moral force backed by pronounced and enduring sentiment.
Moreover, the localities to which it applied were small and their
efforts were likely to be neutralized by the opposite action of
surrounding townships and counties.
DIRECT LA VIZ—In 1846 Maine enacted a law prohibiting
trafﬁc in intoxicants under penalties. It failed because the pen-
alties were only ﬁnes, which were paid by vendors who con-
tinued their business. In 1851 General Neal Dow proposed the
“ Maine Law.” It was passed, and imposed the penalty of ﬁne
and imprisonment on vendors, as well as authorized the seizure
and destruction of liquors illegally held for Sale. It was re-
pealed in 1856 and license substituted, but was re-enacted in
1' 8 58 with severer clauses. Its re-enactment was ratiﬁed by the
people by over 20,000 majority. It was thus clinched by what
all previous temperance laws lacked, viz., a pronounced popular
sentiment. It has stood, in substance, ever since, Subject of
course to much criticism and to many violations, but by no
means a disproof of the wisdom of political regulation of the
trafﬁc. .
Delaware followed Maine with a prohibitory law, in 1847,
which was declared unconstitutional, but was re-enacted in 1855.
Rhode Island passed a prohibitory law, in 18 52, which was un-
constitutional. It was amended in 185 3 and'stood till 1865,
when it gave way to local option. This was supplanted by
prohibition in 1874, which only lasted one year. i
The Vermont prohibitory law of 18 52 still stands, though re-
peatedly amended and elaborated till it is by all odds the most
formidable code on the statute books of the State.
48a PROHIBITION.
Massachusetts moved for prohibition in 1852, but her law did
not stand judicial test. A new law was passed in 1855, which
gave way to a license system in 1868, but was restored in 1869
in a milder form. This stood, with various modiﬁcations, till
1875, when prohibition was overthrown by a license system.
In Connecticut the prohibitory statute of 1854 was repealed
in 1872. The New York law of 1855 was declared unconstitu-
tional in 1856 and fell. The modiﬁed prohibition laws of New
Hampshire, passed in 185 5, remain. In 1859 Michigan intro-
duced prohibition into her State Constitution, or rather an anti~
license clause. She had previously (18 5 3) ratiﬁed a prohibitory
law, whose submission was declared unconstitutional by a di-
vided bench. This law was re-enacted in 1855, and since then
has been a constant source of worriment to' political parties. It
was ﬁnally repealed in 187 5, and a tax law substituted.
Indiana passed a prohibitory law in 185 3, which was ratiﬁed
by the people, but pronounced unconstitutional. It was re-
affirmed in 1855, but again fell under judicial displeasure. The
Iowa law of 18 5 5 was an anti-license measure. Prohibition has
recently received fresh impetus in the State in the shape of a
proposed Constitutional amendment and severer enactments
against indiscriminate trafﬁc in liquors, and the same may be
said of Wisconsin. In Illinois the prohibitory law of 1855
failed of approval by the people. Political temperance was active
in nearly all the States up till the breaking out of the civil war.
The sketch above given shows where and, to some extent, how
it culminated in what-may be called prohibition States. It will
be observed that in all, or nearly all, of them it was forced to
undergo judicial test, and that in many it failed. It will be ob-
served further that in other States it was an exceedingly ﬂuctuat-
ing force, really barren of practical results. Only in Maine and
Vermont has it been steady, and judgment respecting it ought
to rest on a study of its work in these two States rather than on
its ephemeral career or signal failure in others. Prohibitive zeal
may have outstripped discretion in some instances and thus
drawn judicial disfavor. In other cases it could scarcely hope
to contend successfully or for any long time with organized
party forces.
PROHIBITION. 49a
There was now a break in the history of prohibition. War
Suspended its aggressive motion at a time when very few of the
States were averse to fair experiment with it, when, it may be
safely assumed, there was a strong current of sentiment against
the old license or regulation system, and when the popular mind
was in the midst of intelligent inquiry into all temperance pro-
posals.
The thread of its history was taken up again in 1865, and in
a new shapé. Political temperance till this time required the use
of parties as they were found to exist. It forced situations so
that one or another of the political organizations came to its
rescue and helped it to what it demanded. Therefore a larger
issue, like the war, or any overshadowing measure in a cam-
paign, drove it into the background. "Besides, parties did not
take to it as a matter of conviction but of policy. They played
fast and loose with it, used it as a means of discomﬁting enemies
and scoring successes. It therefore appeared useless to depend
further on agencies so ﬁckle and insincere. Moreover, these
were only State or local efforts. The success of any one did not
assure general amelioration of the drinking evil. It must be at-
tacked nationally if its very roots were to be cut. Again, it
must be confronted with a party which could be relied upon—a
party of its own.
As impelling to'this end the open opponents of prohibition
_ had organized for their protection both in State and National As-
sociations. The Beer Brewers’ Association was formed in 1862.
It mentioned among the dangers which threatened their interests:
“The progress of the prohibition cause, through whose agency
th-irteen States had enacted the ‘ Maine Law,’ and more than a
million voters had been pledged to its support.” This was re-
garded as carrying “ temperance into politics ” by the very ele-
ments which had all along deprecated such an aim. It was
therefore accepted as a challenge.
All along temperance had been using the agency of various
societies, chief among which was the Good ‘Templars. In 1868
the Grand Lodge of this body moved for “ the organization of a
national Igqlitical party whose principle should be prohibition of
50a PROHIBITION.
the manufacture, importation and sale of intoxicating liquors to
be used as a beverage.” This was very nearly reﬂected by the‘
Sixth National Temperance Convention, at Cleveland, July 29,
1868. The next year, during a session of the Grand Lodge of
Good Templars, at Oswego, N. Y., a meeting of those favorable
to independent political action was held which resulted in a call
for a convention to organize a “ National Prohibition Party.”
This convention met in Chicago, Sept. 1, 1869, with ﬁve hun-
dred delegates present from twenty different States. ' There was
but little opposition to the thought that both, or all, the existing
political parties could not be depended upon to foster prohib-
ition; that the only way to further care for it was to intrust it to
a new and distinct party, and that the time was ripe for the for—
mation of such party. Said the Chairman, Hon. James Black:
“I see no party that is taking up this warfare, hence I am in
Chicago to-day to help form this party of liberty and civilizaj-
tion.” The resolutions adopted the name of the “ National Pro-
hibition Party,” and declared “that inasmuch as existing political
parties either oppose or ignore this great and paramount ques-
tion . . . . . we are driven by an imperative sense of
duty to sever our connection with them and organize ourselves
into a National Prohibition Party, having for its primary object
the entire suppression of the traffic in intoxicating drinks.”
Hon. Gerritt Smith, in his “ address to the people of the United
States,” authorized by the convention, classed drunkenness with
slavery, and argued that inasmuch as it was the province of
government to protect person and property, it was therefore its
duty to suppress the dram-shop. He regarded the time as
propitious for the new party, because political lines had been
relaxed, and no other prominent measure was pending.
The future of the new party was intrusted to a National Com~
mittee, who issued a call for its “ First National Nominating
Convention,” to be held at Columbus, Ohio, Feb. 22, 1872.
This body went through all the forms of a regular political con-
vention. It nominated Hon. James Black, Pa., for President,
and Rev. John Russell, Mich., for Vice-President, and published
a platform of principles, announcing as cardinal doctrines the
O .
PROHIBITION. 51a
moral and political wrongfulness of the liquor traﬁic ; the inefﬁ~
‘cacy of a license system, and reliance on State and National
prohibition. It took high ground on other questions, among
which was the election of President, Vice-President and Sen-
ators by direct vote of the people, and female suffrage. This
ticket received 5,608 votes at the polls. The number received,
or rather returned, must not be regarded as a measure of the
prohibition sentiment of the country, but rather as expressive of
the hopelessness of a ﬁrst trial amid supreme odds.
A second nominating convention of the “ Prohibition Reform
Party ”—-observe the name is changed—was called for May 17,
1876, at Cleveland. It nominated Hon. Green Clay Smith,-Ky.,
as the party candidate for President, and Hon. G. T. Stewart,
Ohio, for Vice-President. The platform afﬁrmed that of 1872,
and demanded that the government should enforce prohibition
in the District of Columbia and the Territories. The ticket re-
ceived 9,522 votes in the Presidential contest.
The third nominating convention of the party was held at
Cleveland, June 17, 1880, which placed Hon. Neal Dow, Me., in
nomination for the Presidency, and Rev. H. A. Thompson, Ohio,
for the Vice-Presidency. This ticket received 10,305 votes. It
is the purpose of the party to pursue its political work, and to
this end it has national candidates in the ﬁeld this year, as well
as candidates in many of the States. As auxiliary to its political
work there has been formed a National, Prohibition Alliance,
whose object is to educate the people to the use of the ballot as
a means of securing prohibitory legislation. Whatever may be
said of prohibition in its strictly political sense, one cannot help
admiring the energy and pluck of its advocates. They are men
of more than ordinary intelligence, and have the courage of deep
and abiding convictions. They may have been indiscreet in the
political manipulation of their cause in the States, at certain
junctures, and at other times may have lost more than they
gained by the intolerance which is inseparable from burning zeal,
but in general they have learned and advanced as other great
organizations and movements have done. Progress up toward
prohibition has been, on the whole, steady and by strictly logical
52a PROHIBITION.
steps. The ﬁrst National convention in the country (1833)
rested on the immorality of the sale and use of intoxicants. The‘
second one (1836) declared for a total abstinence pledge as a
corrective. The third (I841) attacked license and regulation.
The fourth (1851) declared for prohibition on the basis of the
“ Maine Law.” The ﬁfth (18 5 5) repeated the work of the fourth.
The sixth (1868) called for the ballot as the only effective pro-
hibition weapon. The seventh (I869) culminated in a National
Prohibition Party. This party must itself make great progress
along intelligent and assuring paths before it can hope to so
dominate sentiment as to secure a‘ favorable expression of
popular will through the medium of the ballot. It must not
only pass through many a Red Sea of trouble, but make many
long and tedious marches and countermarches in the deserts of
opinion ‘and controversy.
FOR AND AGAINST—Mention of controversy suggests
that this may be very properly called the controversial era _of
prohibition. The more it makes itself conspicuous in a political
sense the more criticism and antagonism it invites. As it pushes
itself into national, State and local campaigns it assumes the
responsibility of discussion. Being on the aggressive, it cannot
shirk the burden of proof. Happily for all interested, these con-
troversies can be carried on more intelligently and satisfactorily
than formerly, for prohibitive experiments in the States have
been sufﬁciently numerous to afford valuable data for illustra-
tion and argument. It is pleasing to note a gradual dropping
of the dogmatictone on the part of many really able prohibi-
" tionists on the one hand, and on the other a gradual departure
from the aerial sensationalism which marked an emotion but
mocked an argument. As its men, in their new departure, get
knocked about in the arena of politics, either as candidates or as
campaign orators, they learn the proprieties of intellectual com-
bat and lose the spirit which would force a dogma in fresh, un~
digested and irreceivable shape on the popular mind. “’Tis
right, therefore take it,” is not the modern prohibition dose; but
rather, “ Come, let us reason together; my cause hath merit, of
which I may be able to persuade you.”
PROHIBITION. - 53,,
As stated in the beginning of ‘this article, not all temperance
people are agreed as to the practicability of prohibition. A large
and vigorous temperance school still relies on agencies which
are classed as rhoral and regards them as the only effective ones.
Its members draw a distinction between vices and crimes. They
do not see in the liquor trafﬁc a harm done with malice prepense.
Therefore they do not see a crime which law can assume to
punish. They see only a ‘wire, which is the subject of moral
correctives. They say that no law can make a crime of a vice,
or if so, that such law must fail of its object, just as the fugitive
slave law and the Spanish laws against Protestantism did. They
argue that if one vice is punished by law all may be, and in that
event the last man would have to reach out through the cell
door and lock himself in, for we are all guilty of vices. To
this the prohibitionists answer, if the law which makes a vice a
crime is backed by intelligent sentiment, a crime it must be. We
propose to make such a sentiment. We refuse to regard liquor
as other than the dynamite of modern civilization, all promis-
cuousor illegitimate dealing in which is criminal and worthy
of punitive suppression.
The same school refuses to accept the workings of prohibition
as conclusive. For instance, Dr. Dio Lewis, the originator of
'the “ Woman’s Crusade ” movement, says that the “ Maine Law”
has only suppressed the rum trafﬁc in the State on the surface,
and that the ofﬁcial report of the State Prison Inspectors, for
the year of his visit, showed 17,808 arrests for street drunkenness
out of a population of less than 700,000. He continues: “From
that hour I had no difﬁculty in believing all that had been said
about the cunning tricks of the business men in Maine; about
the private drinking-clubs—eighty-six in Portland—many of them
in large rooms over stores, each member‘ of the club carrying a
pretty key, showing it with pride, and chuckling over the helpless-
ness of the constable who might come to the door which that
key unlocked. I have had no difﬁculty in believing that this
has great fascination for young men, and in believing the state-
ment made to_ me in Maine by one of her most eminent citizens,
a warm prohibitionist, to the effect that prohibition, like other
54a PROHIBITION.
good things, had its drawbacks, the worst of which was that a
great number of the better class of young men, who would
never drink in an open saloon, had become victims of the drink- _
ing-clubs.”
This is met by Neal Dow and prohibitionists of his advanced
school by square denial. Others who concede its truth, in great
part, claim that they seek an absolute remedy in National pro-
hibition first and then in State prohibition, or in general State
prohibition. Their thought is suppression of the trafﬂc all along
the line. Local suppression in the midst of hostile surroundings
must always partially fail. Such partial failure, however, does
not shake the principle involved nor operate as a discourage-
ment.
The popular antagonism to prohibition is based on its inter-
ference with personal liberty. This is always plausible. And
in so far as the measure of liberty for the individual is every-
where the measure of liberty in society it is not easy to meet.
The prohibitionists say, “We rejoice in the utmost liberty, if
people will only do right.” This is excellent in the abstract,
but practically their standard of right is the one which must be
subscribed to. Their position is therefore not unlike that of the
Puritan, stout advocate of personal liberty, but to whom a
Quaker was a fellow with wrong views and worthy to be hung.
To this argument the prohibitionists answer, “ We do not seek
to force our opinions to the verge of interference except as they
are embodied in laws.” Then the doctrine of personal liberty
is quite another thing, for it is as civil liberty is, to wit, “natural
liberty so far restrained by human laws as is necessary and ex-
pedient for the general advantage of the public.” All other
notions of personal liberty would admit a right to do wrong,
and would rise as excuses for crime of every kind.
To the argument that prohibition legislation is odious because
it seeks to establish sumptuary laws, the reply is prompt that
the sumptuary acts which formerly brought odium on law-givers
and which were inherently tyrannical were those which limited
the necessities of life, as food, furniture, clothing, etc. Laws
prohibiting the manufacture and sale of a deadly poison or of
PROHIBITION. 556,
an article generally destructive of health and morals, or danger-
ous to the peace and well-being of society, are not sumptuary
in their nature, not at all tyrannical. The public good is the
supreme law.
Much is made of prohibitive experiments in other ways.
_Kansas is conspicuous as an instance of triumphant political
prohibition. It was inserted in the State Constitution. A gov-
ernor was elected for two terms on a distinctive prohibition issue.
It looked as if the principle had a political basis which could
not be shaken. But it failed ﬁnally to ﬂoat a candidate into
gubernatorial honors, failed as a party measure. Why it failed,
is a great question. The sentiment was not a real, but a curious
or experimental one, says one. It was the sentiment of indif-
ference to results, says another. It was a sentiment tired of
prohibition persistency, and willing to see it fail of a trial, says
a third. The true answer is doubtless yet to be found. In
ﬁnding it much will be learned, much proﬁt will ensue. There
should be no apology for'the failure, nor any whimpering about
the defeat—they were signal—but an intelligent quest for causes
and speedy effort to remove them. What is desirable in the
abstract may in its practical application prove both obnoxious
and injurious. '
The Vermont experiment is not much quoted, though it has
been lengthy—thirty years,-—received a popular majority, and
has never failed to secure legislative countenance. The pro-
hibition code there is simply formidable. It prohibits the manu-
facture of spirituous and malt liquors, and the sale or giving
away of the same. Cider must not be sold at any place of
public resort, nor may a man furnish liquors to a minor in
_ his own house. Ingenuity has been taxed to the uttermost to
throw guards around the trafﬁc. Perhaps it has been overdone.
It is. said on good authority that the law is practically a dead
letter, and that 446 liquor-shops are open in the State. Efforts
to enforce the laws are spasmodic and Short-lived. There is
hardly a sentiment against them, but none for them. The com—
munity is oppressed with the dead weight of indifferentism.
Here prohibition is really to blame. It suffers its case to go by
56a PROHIBITION.
default. If a living thing, its vitality should not so ebb and
ﬂow as to invite the rebuke of inordinate spasm and correspond-
ing relapse.
The Ohio controversy has been lengthy and perhaps broader
and more proﬁtable than any other. It is yet open and is enlist-
ing the attention of all thinkers. We cannot pursue it, but it
has brought prohibition to face some of its profoundest problems.
The Scott law imposed a very high license, by which the num-
ber of saloons were reduced some 3,000 in number. It also
contained a local option clause. In addition to this a prohibitive
amendment to the Constitution was urged—and as some think
was carried, at the last election. This was the political phase
of the situation. It has given rise to the thought that such
amendment as was anticipated would have prevented legislative
action in the future on the basis of popular opinion. It has
opened the question of how far the dram-buyer is parz‘z'ceps
crz'mz'm's with the dram-seller and manufacturer. It has started
the inquiry as to how prohibition can be made operative against
the manufacturer of spirits for the arts. It has raised the
question of how far the State or nation can interfere with a
traffic which has sprung from a demand of a large part of the
community, without making itself responsible for the losses that
ensue.
Other questions, equally vital, will doubtless arise before
prohibition achieves its ﬁnal victory. _They must all be met
with becoming spirit. Every day’s march is provocative of
deeper inquiry, and the more formidable prohibition becomes the
more it will be called upon to square itself with laws, times, in-
stitutions and constructions. If a political force with a future,
it must not only be moral and intelligent, but practical.
GENERAL PHASES.-—Whatever the sentiment of the
country or of individuals respecting prohibition, the fact must be
faced that in its new nationally political form it is a broader and
deeper movement than in its old form of local and sporadic
prohibition. It is no longer “hurricane reform,” but rather a
silent force operating along clearly deﬁned lines of progress, and
gradually nerving itself for a ﬁnal clash with the conservatism
PROHIBITION. 57a
of existing political parties and even the angry personalism of
an industry involving millions of dollars. No man ever dreamed
of the existence of 320,000 prohibition votes in Ohio, nor of a
tenth of that number, till the election of 1883. If a sudden
dissolution of parties should come about even now, it is more
than likely'that they could be instantly reformed on the basis
of progress and conservatism, prohibition standing for the former
and license or non-interference for the latter. Alcohol is not
only in politics, but apparently in to stay.
In addition to the regular political steps already taken toward
a national prohibition convention in 1884, for the nomination of
candidates for President and Vice-President, the ladies of the
Women’s Christian Temperance Union of the .United States
thus memorialized the Republican Convention at Chicago:
To the Naz‘z'onal Convention of ﬁre Repuolz'can Party.- We the members of the
Women’s Christian Temperance Union of the United States, herein represented by
the signatures of our ofﬁcers, while believing that while the poison habits of the
nation can be largely restrained by an appeal to intellect through argument, to the
heart through sympathy and to the conscience through the motives of religion,
believe that the trafﬁc in those poisons will be best controlled by prohibitory law.
We believe that the teachings of science, experience and the golden rule combine
to testify against the trafﬁc in‘ alcoholic liquors as a drink, and that the homes of
America, which are the citadcls of patriotism, purity and happiness have no enemies
so relentless as the American saloon. Therefore, as citizens of the United States,
irrespective of sex, or. religion or Section, but having deeply at heart the protection
of our homes, we do hereby respectfully and earnestly petition you to advocate and
adopt such measures as are requisite to the end that prohibition of the importation,
exportation, manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages may become an integral
part of the national Constitution, and that your candidate shall, by character
and public life, be committed to a national prohibitory constitutional amendment.
One of the most remarkable instances of rapid growth in pro-
hibition sentiment has been in the Southern States within two or
three years. In Texas and Georgia it has, in off-political years,
almost obliterated old party lines, and in certain localities, as in
Atlanta, it has enjoyed temporary triumphs, with most of .the
advantages claimed for it by friends and with few of the disad-
vantages charged to it by enemies.
THE SURPLUS REVENUE.
N the fall of 1882 the Republican party of Pennsylvania
introduced into its platform a proposition which read as
8”: follows: “ That any surplus in the public treasury aris-
ing from a redundant revenue should, after paying the
national debt as fast as its conditions permit, be dis-
tributed from time to time to the several States upon the basis
of population, to relieve them from the burden of local taxation
and provide means for the education of their people.” It became
known as the Barker plank, from the name of the gentleman who
suggested it. At ﬁrst it attracted but little attention, but as
time passed it drew comment and discussion, and at last grew to
be a matter of far-reaching and national moment.
HISTORY—It was not a new proposition or doctrine, as
many supposed, but was nearly as old as the government, and
had at various times engaged the attention of statesmen and
parties. Jefferson, in one of his inaugurals, spoke of the neces-
sity of providing a plan for the distribution of the proceeds of
the sales of public lands among the States, it then being a
doctrine that such proceeds belonged to the States which were
the real owners of the lands.
Afterwards, in the second session of the Nineteenth Congress
(1827), a bill was defeated which had for its object the distribu-
tion of a part of the national revenue among the States. In this
Congress the National Republican and Democratic parties were
very evenly divided, and this measure shared the fate of an
amended tariff bill which was strongly urged by the National
Republican (afterwards the Whig) party.
President Jackson, with greater reason than had previously
\xistcd, for the national debt was then growing small, proposed,
580!
THE SURPLUS REVENUE. 59a
in his message to the Twenty=ﬁrst Congress, Dec. 7, 1829, a dis-
tribution of the surplus revenue among the States, the thought
still being that the States were entitled to it as owners of the
public lands, the sale of which constituted a leading source of
income. The President’s suggestion led to the famous Foot re-
solution of inquiry into the sales of the public lands, and to the
proposition to stop surveys and limit their sale for a time, debate
on which engaged almost the entire session of the Senate and
culminated in the splendid oratorical contest between Webster
and Hayne.
On account of the approaching extinguishment of the public
debt, President Jackson, in his message to the Twenty-fourth
Congress, Dec. 7, 183 5, again called attention to the necessity of
devising some means of distributing the surplus revenue among
the States. The matter being timely, it drew many propositions,
each of which was suggestive of the numerous constitutional
difﬁculties in the way. A direct return of surplus moneys to
the States, and the further collection of the same for the pur-
pose of so returning them, were regarded as out of the question.
The plan was hit upon of loaning to the States, in proportion to
their population, such part of the surplus as they thus became
entitled to. The act passed, June 23, 1836, to take effect Jan.
I, 1837. It authorized the deposit of all surplus for that year,
except $ 5,000,000, in what were then known as the “ pet banks,”
or designated government depositories, the same to be drawn
out by each State to the extent of what was due it, and to be
regarded as a loan for whose payment the State stood as security.
There was an actual distribution to the extent of $26,101,644.
The quota due each State for the year 1837 was ascertained, and
three quarterly payments were made pn Jan. 1, April I and July
1. Owing to the panic of that year, which forced the act of
Oct. 2, 1837, postponing further payment till Jan. I, 1839, the
fourth instalment was never paid. To illustrate, the quota ascer~
tained to be due Pennsylvania was $3,82 3,3 5 3.04, and of this she
received three instalments of $95 5,838.26 each, or a total of
$2,867,514.78. The quota of Virginia was $2,931,236, and of
this she received three instalments of $732,809 each, or a total
of $2,198,427. ‘
60a, Tl-IE SURPLUS REVENUE.
The act had an excuse for its existence in the fact that there
was no debt of any account and a surplus revenue, which, unless
distributed, the treasury would have had to hoard. It was based
on the then prevailing theory that the States were entitled to it
as owners of the public lands, whence most of this revenue came.
But probably the passage of the act was due as much to a desire
on the part of certain presidential aspirants to stand well with
the States as to anything else. The Foot inquiry of ‘former
years had shown that the policy of stopping surveys and sales
of public lands fora time was very unpopular. These going on,
the question of distribution kept at the front.
Further, the act imposed no restrictions on the States. They
could use the money as they pleased. Indeed the very nature
of the distribution—it was a loan and not an absolute gift, though
it was understood that payment would never be demanded——
prevented such restriction. What the States did with it is not
certain at this date. It is said that in Maine and New Hamp-
shire it was distributed among the people amid inﬁnite jest; that
New York set it apart as a school fund; that North Carolina
put it into internal improvements; that Pennsylvania divided
hers into a school fund and a fund for internal improvement. As
to the rest of the twenty-six States which participated the im-
pression is that it was frittered away without permanent good
results. '
After the panic of 18 3 7 and the era of low tariffs which began
with the sliding scale of 1833, not to end till 1861, the country
was in no condition .to moot the question of a distribution of a
surplus. Yet it unfortunately came up in 1842. The Whigs
were then striving to pass the protective tariff act of that year’.
They did so after a long debate, and in order to calm apprehen-
sion respecting a redundant revenue from it they coupled with it
a clause providing for the distribution of any surplus that might
arise among the States. 'The bill fell under Tyler’s veto. A
second was passed without protective features. This was also
vetoed. . A third without either the protective or the surplus
distribution feature was passed and signed. This became the
celebrated Tariff Act of 1842.
TIIE SURPLUS REVENUE. 61a
After that the act of 1836 passed quite out of mind, and the
theory of distribution with it, if we except the recent demands
made by Arkansas and'Virginia upon the treasury for payment of
the fourth instalments which they claimed to be due them. The
Virginia case took the shape of a mandamus to compel the
Secretary of the Treasury to pay her the sum of $732,809, the
same being the fourth instalment of public money which the
Secretary of the Treasury was directed to deposit for the beneﬁt
of the State by act of Congress dated June 23, 1836. The
Supreme Court of the United States, March 17, 1884, dismissed
the mandamus, saying “that the act in question created no debt
or legal obligation on the part of the United States to the States
accepting its terms, but only made provision for the deposit
temporarily with the States, subject to recall by the government,
of a portion of the surplus national revenue.” Further: “ The
act authorized the deposits to be made out of surplus in the
treasury, ‘on January I, 1837. The act of October 2, 1837,
postponed the fourth instalment till January 1, 1839. The con—
dition of the treasury was then such as to forbid its payment
or deposit. Congress did not make it a charge on revenue in
the treasury after January 1, 1839, and the Secretary of the
Treasury has no power to apply subsequently collected revenue
to the payment of said fourth instalment without an act of
Congress.” ‘*
It thus appears that distribution of the surplus revenue is no
new question, but one which has plagued the Government and
parties throughout the century.
PRESENT QUEST ION—The present question of surplus
distribution comes up at.a time when there is really no surplus
revenue. The country is in debt to the extent of nearly $1,500,-
000,000. - Rigid economists say “let all revenue be devoted to
the payment of the debt, then talk about distribution.” This is
almost the position taken by the Secretary of the Treasury in
his last report, December, 1883. His words are: “ It is perhaps
enough for the present that the payable debts of the Union can
take up all surplus .now existing or likely to arise for four years
to come.”
62a THE SURPLUS REVENUE.
The President in his message to Congress, December, 1883,
advises a diminution of the excise taxes if the‘ surplus appears
too large ; _ yet, the same having been reduced to the extent of
$50,000,000 in 1883, and the Tariff rates having been consider-
ably cut, he thinks that the full effect of these laws should be
witnessed before making haste to reduce the surplus further.
Observe both of these functionaries speak of a surplus revenue.
They do not mean that there is an actual surplus as in 1836;
that is, one over and above absolute needs; but only one above
present or current wants. There is more than enough to pay
the expenses of running the Government, the interest on the
debt, and such part of the principal as may be falling due, or as
ought to be met in order to keep up steady reduction. If the
thought is entertained that all surplus should go to the
extinguishment of the debt, then no question can arise as to the
distribution of the surplus among the States. If, on the con-
trary, the thought he conspicuous—and it surely is—that we
ought not to pay the debt so rapidly, then the question of
making some disposition of the surplus forces itself to the front,
for nothing is better established than the'doctrine that a govern-
ment ought not to collect money from the people for the mere
pleasure of the thing and for the purpose of piling it up idly in
the vaults of the Treasury. -
The present question of surplus distribution is therefore com-
plex. It depends on our ideas respecting the propriety of rapid
or slow payment of the National debt. And rapid or slow pay-
ment of the debt is in itself a great question. Rapid payment
means a continuance of high excise taxes and high rates of duty
on imports. It means constant calling in of bonds, which holders
would rather retain than give up. It means the speedy and ﬁnal
extinguishment of the bonds which the National Banks are
compelled to buy and hold as a basis of the banking system, and
it consequently means the end of that system, or its reorganiza-
tion on some other and less satisfactory basis. In its most
favorable light, it means of course the early stoppage of interest
on the debt and thereby an immense annual saving.
Slow payment means a lower tax and tariff rate, a spreading
THE SURPLUS REVENUE. 63a,
of the burdens over the future, a longer continuance of the
National Banking system, enjoyment of our securities by holders,
and annual loss in the shape of interest. But in view of the
fact that our bonds have to be met at stated times as they fall
due, there is no school of economists which advocates a reduc-
tion of our National income to the low standard of mere current
or every-day wants. All agree that we should pay our way
and be making ready for future demands; in other words, that
however much taxation may be reduced, the Government should
not be pinched, but should have a handsome margin each year;
that is, a surplus.
Selﬁsh rather than strictly economical considerations come in
to complicate the question. Those interested in liquors and
tobacco, the two articles which now hear the brunt of excise
taxation, naturally want them relieved of tax. They point to
the dangers of a surplus revenue, and answer the question of
distribution by saying, “ Strike off the tax and thus do away with
the surplus.” Again, those interested in maintaining a high pro-
tective tariff see great danger in a large surplus. Some would
have it applied directly to the payment of the debt, so that an
inducement to lower tariff rates and income from duties might
not arise, for the present at least. Others fall in with the liquor
and tobacco interests, and advocate abolition of all excise taxes
and internal revenue, on the theory that if this source of income
is cut off, the government will be compelled to maintain a high
standard of duties on imports. Still others are ardent advocates
of the present rates of tax and duty, and as to the surplus that
is arising and sure to arise, they say, “ Let it be distributed among
the States, and to some good end.”
One other thought in connection with the present question of
surplus distribution, before we turn to its history. The surplus
' under consideration is that which arises from all sources. It is
general and mixed. The early attempts at distribution among
the States, and the successful one of 1836, touched a special,
unmixed surplus—that arising from the sale of public lands. It
was not a surplus occasioned by taxation, nor was the distribution
regarded as anything more than a return of moneys to the proper
64a THE SURPLUS REVENUE.
owners, State supremacy and right to the public domain being
then a prominent political doctrine. There is now no proposition
~—except as a means of avoiding Constitutional objections, or of
reconciling the idea of distribution to the popular mind—to sep-
arate the surplus,’ and to distribute to the States the part which
arises from the sale of public lands, or from any special source.
The distribution is not to be made because the States have any
paramount right to the surplus moneys, but because the govern-
ment chooses to be generous and to restore to the people, as
nearly as it can, the sums it has collected from them. This is
the proposition of distribution coldly stated. But it has taken
quite another form under discussion, as we shall see.
We now turn to the growth or ampliﬁcation of the surplus dis-
tribution idea. As embodied in the Pennsylvania platform, it
meant a distribution of not needed surplus among the States in
proportion to their population, and for the purpose of relieving
them “from the burden of local taxation and providing means
for the education of their people.” There was no mention of
the source whence the surplus sprang. The distribution was to
be general, and on the basis of population. It was to be con-
stant as long as a surplus arose, great or small in proportion to
the extent of that surplus. The recipient States were to be
limited in their use of the money. They were to pay local debts
with it and provide means for the education of their people.
A year afterwards, Nov. 22, 1883, the question came promi-
nently before the public through a letter from Hon. james G.
Blaine, published in the Philadelphia Press. He objected to the
Pennsylvania plan because it proposed to give no steady or cer-
tain amount to the States each year. They would be the recipi-
ents of a large amount this year and a small amount next, just
as the surplus ﬂuctuated in the Treasury. The States could not,
therefore, depend on it to support any plan for reducing their
debts or building up educational systems. They would fritter
it away as they did the deposits of 1837. He objected further
that it placed a temptation before representatives from impecu-
nious States to withhold their support from National and legit-
imate appropriations in order to make those for their States as
THE SURPLUS REVENUE. 65a
large as possible. His third objection, was to the assumption
contained in the proposition that our present redundancy of rev-
enue would continue for some time. But owing to the fact, or
combination of facts, that our securities were in such shape that
payment of much of the debt could well be postponed, and that
there was hardly a possibility of so reducing taxes and duties as
to avoid a surplus income, he regarded it as a ﬁt time to help the
States to lift their debts and lower their rates of taxation. Then,
on the theory that the Federal government could alone tax
spirits with any degree of success, that it was the easiest and
handiest taxation known, being on a luxury, and that it was far
less oppressive and hurtful than any local tax on land or per-
sonal property, he proposed to turn over to the States each year
the amount raised by the government on liquors, with the intent
that they should reduce their own taxes in proportion to the
amount received. The amount raised .in 1883 from tax on
liquors was $86,000,000, which, in the hands of the States, would
enable them to reduce their local taxation that much. Thus, he
argued, the States would have a certain income, one arising from
a speciﬁc tax on speciﬁc articles, and they could afford to engage
in plans for lowering taxes without fear of confusion.
While this plan went back to that of 1836, and involved the
distribution of a special, or speciﬁcally derived, surplus, and may
have, in the mind of its author, thereby overcome a Constitu-
tional objection, it was narrower than the Pennsylvania plan,
which proposed that the recipient States should not only lower
their taxes, but educate their people, through and by means of
the government's bounty. It further created a Surplus for dis-
tribution, and made it certain for each year, a thing notv contem-
plated in the Pennsylvania proposition, for it assumed to deal
only with such surplus as seemed probable, unless there came
about a reduction of both excise taxes and tariff rates.
This reopening of the question drew a variety of opinions
from all sources, and proved the beginning of a discussion which
has since become general, and in some instances taken on party
hues. Both the plans of distribution were compelled to face the
Constitutional argument that the government had no right to
38
660. THE SURPLUS REVENUE.
raise money by taxation for the purpose of handing it over to the
States that they might thereby lighten the burden of State taxa~
tion. And this has all along been the most serious argument
against any proposition to distribute national surplus. It is
certainly stronger against creating a surplus, or setting apart
speciﬁcally ‘derived income, for the use of the States, than
against such disposition of an accidental surplus found in the
Treasury, especially if the latter goes to the States for educa-
tional purposes, or partly so. In the end it may prove a fatal
objection.
Another objection was to the effect that the distribution of
moneys arising from the taxation of malt and spirituous liquors
would be enriching States which did not manufacture such
liquors at the expense of those which did. This lost its weight
by the consideration that the consumers, in the end, paid the
tax, and such consumers were found in every State. Again it '
was said that if the States were thus supported, the people would
lose their interest in local affairs; that it looked to the perpetua_
tion of internal revenue taxation at a time when public senti-
ment favored its abolition; that it would encourage proﬂigacy
in the States ; would be generally unwise and mischievous.
The friends of distribution relied on historic precedent, on a
popular sentiment which could not be induced to relieve liquors
from taxation so long as lands and articles of necessity were
subject to it, on the ability of the government to collect such
tax with the machinery already in existence, on the fairness of a
distribution according to population, on the immense advantage
likely to accrue to the States.
When the matter began to assume practical shape, which it
did in a bill drawn by Mr. Barker, author of the Pennsylvania
plan, it was seen that many of the objections above urged were
insuperable. There was a general departure from the thought
that the government ought to raise revenue for the purpose of
distributing it. Indeed, it appeared that if the government were
to assume any such generous attitude toward the States, it must
have a higher justiﬁcation than had thus far cropped out. That
part of the Pennsylvania plan which referred to a distribution
THE SURPLUS REVENUE. 67a,
for educational purposes now became conspicuous. States had
founded educational systems and endowed them liberally, on
the theory that they owed an obligation to the citizen—the
obligation of redeeming him from illiteracy. Did not a similar
obligation exist on the part of the Federal government?
This question had been asked many times during the existence
of our government, and in general answered afﬁrmatively. If
such obligation existed at all, it did so now to an extent greater
than ever. Illiteracy was everywhere. In some sections half
the people were illiterates. Those sections were not the richest,
nor best qualiﬁed to embark in liberal schemes of education.
What so easy and proper as for the government to extend edu-
cational aid? There was a surplus of revenue, and distribution
of it for such purpose would be in the nature of a parental
patronage. Constitutional objections would be avoided. The
government would be a benefactor. Public moneys would not
go out to the States as such, and in proportion to population,
but to the States as localities where illiteracy was prevalent and
in proportion to the number of illiterates. Help would go
where it was needed, light into dark places, both as a demand
existed. ,
In looking back, precedent was found to be abundant. The
ordinance (I78 5) for the government of the Northwest Territory
set apart the sixteenth section (640 acres) of every township for
common school purposes, and wisely declared that “religion,
morality and knowledge being necessary to good government
and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of educa--
tion shall be ever encouraged.” Fourteen of the States received
school lands under this ordinance. The ordinance of I 787 in-
creased the gift of school lands to two townships of land to each
State for the purpose of founding a university. This ordinance
was conﬁrmed after the adoption of the Constitution, and every
State organized since 1800 has enjoyed this gift of 46,000 acres.
Those States which handled their deposit, under the act of 1836,
in the wisest manner made a school fund of it. Many acts, run-
ning from 1841 to 1860, gave large grants of lands to the States,
much of which was wasted, but some of which was turned to
68a THE SURPLUS REVENUE.
the account of public schools. Up to this time the government
gave to the States lands estimated at 140,000,000 acres, most of
which, it is safe to say, has been converted to public school uses.
In 1862 a further grant was made to each State of 30,000 for
each Senator and Representative in Congress, the proceeds of
the same to be devoted to the founding and maintenance of agri-
cultural colleges.
It is thus made apparent that something very like a policy
has existed from a time beyond the Constitution to extend
national aid to education. True, only public lands were given
away, but that does not alter the principle. The treasury was
deprived of their proceeds. The proceeds themselves might as
well have been given—perhaps better.
At this juncture the question of distributing surplus revenue
among the States was merged in that of extending national aid
to education. It came into the Senate in December, 1883, in
the shape of the Blair bill, and was at ﬁrst coldly received by both
political parties. But as discussion advanced, its merits became
clear, and it ﬁnally passed that body. Its success in the House
is a matter of the future. It appropriates $77,000,000, to be
dealt out to the States during a period of eight years, in propor-
tion to the number of illiterates in each. But no State shall
receive more than it expends itself for public schools, nor shall
any State receive its instalment till the governor thereof ﬁles an
annual statement showing the school attendance and expen-
diture for the same. While it disposes of all probable or
troublesome surplus revenue for eight years at least, it does so
with a distinctive aim, and under conditions which make it
obligatory on the States to devote it to education. Certainly
surplus moneys could not go out of the treasury in a worthier
direction. The government control of the funds appropriated
is not lost till a guarantee is given that they are being devoted
to the uses designed.
The objections to the bill may be grouped under three heads:
(1) Those as to its constitutionality. (2) Those to the effect that
it was virtually legislating in favor of a. section, it being known
that the Southern States would receive the bulk of the moneys
THE SURPLUS REVENUE. 69a,
appropriated because the per cent. of illiteracy was largest there. .
(3) Those (chieﬂy from Southern Senators) to the effect that it
showed .a want of conﬁdence in the ability of the States to
handle the question of education, and would tend to weaken
local pride in common schools and local exertion for their sup-
port. ‘
The bill rests on the fact of illiteracy, which is indisputable.
It further rests on the theory that illiteracy is an element of
danger to the republic, which it is a duty to remove. It simply
extends the facts and theories which are the basis of common
school systems in the States to the national government, and
gives them play there amid greater opportunities for good.
Whatever may be the fate of the bill in the House, it is certain
that the Senate’s action has brought before the country a far-
reaching and important question—one which, while it involves
that of surplus distribution and in a measure settles it, will prove
pregnant with good or evil, just as statesmen rise or fall with a
grave situation.
While these discussions were going on, the fact of a large
actual surplus in the national treasury came to pass. The re-
ceipts from customs and internal taxes—the chief sources of
national revenue—were so large and uniform as to exceed the
expenditures by several millions of dollars a year. The Secre-
tary of the Treasury estimated that by July 1, 1888, the surplus
would be $140,000,000. This condition of affairs threw both
political parties into feverish anxiety, for it was felt that taxation
which netted a greater income than was needed was unnecessary
and unwise. Moreover, the accumulation of vast sums in the
Treasury and the holding of them there in idleness was simply a
withdrawal of so much from the monetary circulation of the
country, and an invitation to stringency and ﬁnancial disaster.
The question of Surplus, therefore, became more exigent than
ever before. The Blair Educational Bill was still pressed as a
possible means of disposing of a part, at least, of the accumula-
tion. A proposition was also introduced to distribute among
the States as much of the public money as was collected during
the war through and by'means of the Income or direct tax.
70a THE SURPLUS REVENUE.
Various schemes were proposed to increase pensions, enlarge
our navy, fortify our coasts and grant subsidies to steamship
lines. But, in general, theories about the methods of distribut-
ing what had accumulated were merged in efforts to prevent
further accumulation. And here the country had a striking in-
stance of the rapid and unaccountable changes which affect both
political and industrial sentiment. The manufacturers of liquors
had come to favor the retention of the internal tax on their pro-
ducts. What they at ﬁrst despised as a war tax had turned into
a lovely and desirable imposition, and they were as unanimous
as a secret fraternity over the wisdom of submitting indeﬁnitely
to the existing tax. They had come to regard all the taxes they
had paid on whiskey in storage as just so much added to the
cost of production; and a removal, or any material reduction of
the tax, would serve to throw their high-priced product into a
market cheapened by competition with a low-priced or untaxed
manufacture. The whiskey interests were coherent, aggressive
and ingenious. They threw out their inﬂuence in such a way as
to seriously affect politics, and no Democratic measure for a re-
duction of the Treasury Surplus contemplated a removal of the
tax on liquors in preference to a scaling of the rates of duty on
imports or a repeal of the tobacco tax. The preference of the
' Republicans, too, was for a repeal of the tobacco taxes ﬁrst, and
as to the whiskey tax, they would doubtless have stood hand in
hand with the Democrats, but for the fact that as a party they
could not'afford to sacriﬁce the great principle of“ Protection”
by means of the Tariff laws, which principle became more and
more a distinctive party tenet, just as the opposing principle of
F ree-trade loomed into prominence as a Democratic tenet.
Therefore while the two leading parties were equally anxious
about a diminution of the surplus, they were wide apart as to
methods of bringing it about. In general, the Republican plan
was to effect the desired object by repeal of the internal taxes,
letting the duties on imports alone; while the Democratic plan
was to reach the same result by lowering the duty on imports,
letting the internal taxes alone. The anomaly consisted in the
desire of the Republicans to Wipe out a system of taxes they had
TH E SURPLUS REVENUE. 71 a,
originated, fostered and defended as war measures, the excuse
being that said taxes had outlived their day, were needless as
further sources of revenue, ought to be repealed in preference to
duties on imports and, indeed, must be ﬁrst repealed in order to
save the tariff laws and rates from attack. The anomaly further
consisted in the desire of the Democrats to perpetuate a system
of taxation they had opposed from the very beginning up until a
late period, and had bitterly decried as “war measures,” the ex-
cuse being that there was no outcry against the internal taxes
by the people, while there was a widespread demand or com-
mercial necessity for lower rates of duty on imports, and espe-
cially the placing of many articles of raw material on the free list.
Practically speaking, this was the shape the question of reduc-
ing the surplus revenue took during the ﬁrst session of the Fif-
tieth Congress (1888). That anything deﬁnite and ﬁnal could
be reached amid such political conditions would seem impos-
sible. But, even if it could, only the question of future surplus
would be settled. The equally grave matter of “what to do
with the already existing surplus " would still be open, and no
doubt the subject of as much contention as ever.
PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE.


ATURE OF THE SUBJECT—This chief of living quesl
’ ‘ tions in our economy and politics is compound in sub-
stance and form. In form its parts take the shape of a
case in court between plaintiff and defendant. In sub-
stance it covers two distinct branches of economic
science, to wit, the relation of labor to capital, and the principle
of taxation.
LABOR AND CAP] T AL.——Touching these, the question
has its broadest signiﬁcance. There is practically no limit to its
range. In this ﬁeld doctrinaires spin their fondest theories, and
practical men pile up their cherished facts and ﬁgures. Parties,
even, shape their lines on the basis thus afforded, and make the
political arena ring with arguments of refutation and pleas for
recognition and support.
FREE T RADE—But let it be understood that Free Trade in
the abstract is conﬁned only to bookish theorists. In this, its
fullest sense, it means open, unrestricted commerce with all
nations. As to ourselves, and within the limitations of our sub-
ject, it means the opening of our ports to the free importation
of foreign manufactures and direct competition with the richer
capital, riper machinery, and cheaper labor of older countries.
This is not, as yet, advocated by any political party in this country,
though it is contained,_as a germ, in most of the anti-protection
arguments. Those who pass for Free Traders, and who must
be called such since popular speech thus best distinguishes them, -
in general recognize the right, and propriety, of a duty on
imports for the purpose of supplying the government with
. necessary revenue. Controversially they enter the ﬁeld of cap-
ital- and labor, practically they are only within that of taxation.
720
PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE. 73a
The fostering of our industries, in other words protection, is an
incident of taxation, not an object. How long they can resist
the tendency of their arguments and refrain from a ﬁnal plunge
into abstract Free Trade remains to be seen.
PROT EC T I ON—On the other hand it should be understood
that Protection, from its very inception till now, embraced the
principles of taxation, and, taking advantage of them as a founda-
tion, built thereon a system designed to encourage the develop-
ment of home resource. While all agreed that duties on im-
ports were the least burdensome of indirect taxes, and therefore
the most cheerfully paid, Protection made them a discrimination
against foreign peoples and turned them to the account of our
own. It at ﬁrst vindicated the procedure by the example of
other countries and by the desirability of commercial and indus'
trial independence. Now it vindicates its position by reference
to what it has achieved in the domain of capital and labor. It
is the doctrine of a school, which uses the ﬂag and discipline of
a political party, but whose scholars are found in all parties. In
fact it has not been inaptly distinguished by the terms “Ameri-
can Idea,” and “American System.”
T AXA T I ON—The easiest approach to both the history and
principles of Protection and Free Trade is through the word
“ Tariff.” It is the Arabic word Za’rzf, “information,” either
because it was' the list of goods on which duties were levied, or
the name of the town or post, “Tarifa,” on the coast of Spain
where the Moorish authorities kept watch and gave information
of vessels sailing through the Straits of Gibraltar, on whose
cargoes they were accustomed to levy taxes. These Moors left
their numerals and this word tariff as a legacy to the civilized
nations of the world. The reﬁnements of trade have given the
word tariff a deﬁnite meaning.
All taxes are divided into direct and indirect. Indirect taxes
are those levied on goods in passing from hand to hand—say
from manufacturer to consumer, or from importer to consignee.
It would be better for our purposes to say that all taxes are
internal or external. External taxes are those levied on imports
from, or exports to, a foreign country. They are what the Con-
74a, PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE.
stitution means by “ duties” and “imposts,” in the clause, “The
Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, z'm-
posts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common
defense and general welfare of the United States.” They are
also covered by the word “ Tariff,” but since export taxes
are exceptional, Tariff has come to signify the taxes on im~
ports alone, and also the law or system under which such
taxes are levied. All civilized nations have a tariff of some
kind.
TARIFF—This tariff, indirect or external tax, was formerly
used by nations as a source of revenue alone, and frequently in
a spirit of booty. But as soon as they began to have intelligent
notions of trade, and of internal development, it became an
economic force. Legitimate trade may be said to have taken its
rise in England under the auspices of Elizabeth. Its rapid pro-
gress there must be ascribed, in a great measure, to the fostering
care of the government, exercised through and by means of
tariff regulations. From a different spirit in her institutions,
though with superior advantages, France, at a later period and
under the endeavors of her ingenious and indefatigable Colbert,
laid the foundation of her industry and commerce. The estab-
lishment of the woollen industry in a country, where nature
seems to have denied the means, has always been alluded to by
statesmen as an evidence of what can be effected by patronizing
administration and a truly fostering government. The Dutch,
who were pre-eminent in industry and trade, ever made them an
essential object of State. Their government was paternal in the
extreme, and their regulations more numerous than those of any
other country. And so with other peoples, after trade became
legitimatized, and industry responsive to regulation. The tariff;
in one shape or another, was the great regulating lever, and the
main source of encouragement. Since uniﬁed Germany has
come upon the map, she has resorted to special tariff enactments,
which involve protective features. Italy has had recourse to
higher tariff laws, in order to encourage lagging industries.
France, after having for a long time relaxed her earlier regula-
tions, has returned _to them as a means of industrial revival.
PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE. 750
There are but three countries in all Europe, beside England, that
are not protective—Turkey, Switzerland and Norway. Turkey
is now insisting on higher rates of duty.
THE ENGLISH POL] C Y.—The old English system of ton-
nage and poundage laws, of protective tariffs, and of commercial
regulations, was severely in her own favor. It embraced over
four hundred Acts of Parliament, and was administered without
respect to the rights of any other nation, but solely for her own
industrial and commercial welfare. She did not hesitate to make
her tariffs prohibitive, nor to directly prohibit the exportation
of articles which might teach inferior nations the skill of her
own. There is no record of a protective system so selﬁshly
Woven and tyrannically administered as hers, if we except the
absolutely exclusive and despotic system of China; nor of one
so persistently sustained till it gave her the manufacturing and
commercial supremacy she courted. This point reached, as to
commerce by 182 5, and as to manufactures by 1846, she resorted
to a change of policy. We shall see hereafter how she turned
her American colonial policy to protective account. Let us see
how she protected her iron. From 1782 to 1795 the duty on
foreign bar iron was over $12 per ton. In 1797 it was over $14;
from 1798 to 1802 over $15 ; from 1806 to 1808 over $23 ;
from 1810 to 1812 over $24; in 1818 over $28. By 1825 the
duty was £6 10s. per ton if imported in British ships, and
£7 183.641’. if imported in foreign ships. Other manufactured
iron paid £ 20 ($90) per ton; and iron not otherwise enumerated
paid £ 50 for every ;6 100 worth imported. All of these rates
were then not only protective, but prohibitive, and they serve as
an index to the policy which prevailed as to other industries
which she designed to foster.
MODERN EN GLISH POLICY—The change from pro-
tection of the most studied and persistent kind to a policy of
free trade came, after the former had given her wealth and a
mighty reserve capital, multiplied her industries, fostered inven-
tive skill, carried her fabrics to perfection, and enabled her to
dominate the markets of weaker, less skillful, wealthy and inde-
pendent nations. “ Her own markets for _her own wares,” was
76a, PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE.
the motto so long as they were in danger of competitive inva-
sion by others. A number of her writers on political economy,
for more than half a century prior ‘to 1846, had inclined to the
doctrine of free trade. Her statesmen followed in their wake
and gradually changed the character of her tariff legislation. By
the latter date free trade in manufactures was the accepted
dogma. Free trade treaties had been effected with a few of the
leading countries—notably France—but these were not, in gen-
eral, ‘renewed. For a time she hesitated about her commercial
supremacy, owing to the cheapness and facility with which
Americans built fast sailing ships. But during the transfer from
wooden sailers to iron steamers—a transfer which, in America,
was unfortunately retarded, or rather whose prosperous beginning
was prevented, by our civil war—she took a decided lead. By
means of enormous subsidies, covering a period of twenty years,
she destroyed the effect of all legitimate competition, and created
for herself a monopoly in building and operating a steam iron
marine. After this the principle of subsidies, like that of pro-
tection to her manufactures, was no longer insisted upon. She
became free trade all through, and immediately set up to in-
doctrinate the world with her newly assumed and thoroughly
selﬁsh dogmas. Her Cobden Club, an association of British
noblemen, was formed in 1866. Its avowed object is interfer-
ence with the protective policy of newer, weaker and less favored
nations, and their conversion to English free trade notions. Not
content'with arguments scattered abroad in tracts and books,
this club, which counts among its numbers 200 members of
Parliament and 12 of the I4 Cabinet ministers, has established
agencies in different parts of the United States, for the purpose
of operating directly on our politics, especially in congressional
districts. In its issue of july 16, 1880, the London Times said:
“ It is to the New World that the Cobden Club is chieﬂy look-
ing as the most likely sphere for its vigorous foreign policy. It
has done what it can in Europe, and it .is now turning its eyes
westward and bracing itself for the struggle which is to come.
It cannot rest while the United States are unsubdued.”
BRITISH COLONIAL POLICY—Tariff, in some shape,
PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE. 77a,
prohibitive, protective or general, was the wedge which forced
colonial America from her British allegiance. Says McCulloch
in his Commercial Dictionary: “ It was a leading principle in the
system of colonial policy, adopted as well by England as
by other European nations, to discourage all attempts to
manufacture such ‘articles in the colonies as could be provided
for them by the mother country.” Says Bancroft, “England,
in its relations with other States, sought a convenient tariff; in
the colonies ‘it prohibited industry.” An Act of Parliament in
1750 prohibited as a common nuisance the erection of any mill
in America for slitting or rolling iron, or any plating forge to
work with a tilt hammer, or furnace for making steel. So the
making of nails was prohibited in Pennsylvania. Even to 1776,
England, according to Adam Smith, “ prohibited the exportation
from one province to another by water, and even the carriage
by land, upon horseback or in a cart, of hats, of wools and
woollen goods, of the produce of America, a regulation which
effectually prevents the establishment of‘ any manufacture of
such commodities for distant sale, and conﬁnes the industry of
her colonists in this way to such coarse and household manu-
factures as a private family commonly makes for its own use or
for that of some of its neighbors in the same province.”
After the invention of the puddling furnace and rolling mill
by Henry Cort, we ﬁnd English statutes (1 78 5) prohibiting the
exportation of tools and utensils to foreign parts, the migration
of workmen skilled in manufactures, and (1799) even of colliers
who mined her coal. The ﬁrst complete rolling mill in America,
erected at Plumsock, Fayette county, Pa., for Col. Isaac Meason,
was built and started by two Welshmen, Thomas and George
Lewis, who came under the head of British skilled iron-workers,
and as such were compelled to “ smuggle ” their passage across
the Atlantic.
We are all more orless familiar with the English methods of
exacting revenue from her American colonies, by Tea Acts,
Stamp Acts, etc. They were but a part of that stupendous
system of home protection and foreign discrimination which en\
riched England and built up her manufactures and commerce at-
78a PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE.
the expense of other nations. By no act or thought did she
encourage agriculture in America, though she seemed to know
that this country would in time become her granary. No sooner
was this proved, under the auspices of independence and in the
midst of circumstances she could not control, than she set about
to build up rival markets in other, and newly planted, colonies.
How well she has succeeded in India and Australia ought to
appear clear from the fact that her wheat supply from these two
sources for 1883-4 so nearly equaled her demand as to leave our
splendid surplus of 80,000,000 bushels almost untouched, or
subject to a tardy movement at ruinous ﬁgures. .
THE AMERICAN THOUGH T.——Colonial independence
meant escape from this discriminative and ruinous ‘British policy.
There was hardly a colonial debate that did not inveigh against
the selﬁsh efforts of England to enrich herself at the expense of
other nations, and to complete her industrial and commercial
supremacy by overriding their protective systems and sapping
their powers for independent, competitive existence. A prime
fact mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and “sub-
mitted to a candid world ” as proof that Great Britain designed
to establish “ an absolute tyranny over these States,” was “ cut-
ting off our trade with all parts of the world; ” and among the
rights of a free people is mentioned that to “ establish commerce.”
The most fatal defect of the Articles of Confederation was
absence of power to collect revenue, regulate trade, encourage
industry. The thoughts of all our early statesmen were turned
to this defect, which to them was the more glaring, because of
intimate acquaintance with the British system. So paramount
was the necessity for escape from industrial and commercial de-
pendence, and so momentous was deemed the power to protect
ourselves that Washington conﬁdently looked to the trade regu-
lations of a more efﬁcient government as a means of giving the
country its proper weight in the scale of empires, and, with a
feeling foreign to his better nature, he declared that such govern-
ment “ will surely impose retaliating restrictions, to a certain
degree, upon the trade of England.”
The proceedings of the Continental Congress abound in de-
. PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE. 79a
bates, resolutions and committees, having for their object the
promotion of home products and the‘development of home re-
sources. There seemed to be no question, among the leaders
of thought, of the right and duty of a government to foster in-
dustry by legislative enactment, nor of the necessity for a new’
government endowed with ample power to provide revenue
through a tariff and at the same time pnotect all its vital interests.
THE FREE TRADE ERA—But this sentiment was not
universal. Abuse of this power on the part of England had led
to revulsion against it in the minds of the mercantile community.
They needed the experience of the free trade era, from the date
of the treaty of peace with England to the adoption of the Con-
stitution (1783-89), to change their convictions. Free trade then
existed, under the hard compulsion of circumstances. Tariffs
were in the hands of the States. Where one imposed a duty
the other admitted the article free. There was no uniform im-
post law, and therefore practically none at all. The States, de-
pleted by the war of the revolution, were the victims of unre-
strained foreign trade competition. They had few factories,
rolling mills and workshops, and but limited means of recupera-
tion. Says Carey, “At the close of the Revolution the trade
of America was free and unrestrained in the fullest sense of the
word, according to the theory of Adam Smith, Say, Ricardo,
the Edinburg Reviewers, and the authors of the Encyclopaedia.
Her ports were open, with scarcely any duties, to the vessels
and merchandise of other nations.” What befel P As the States
were discordant, foreign powers passed such laws as they pleased
to destroy our commerce. Nearly every foreign nation shipped
goods into the country and dumped them promiscuously on our
wharves. The consequences followed which never fail to follow
such a state of things. Competition on the part of our manu-
facturers was at an end. They were bankrupted and beggared.
The merchants whose importations had ruined them were in-
volved in the calamity. Farmers, who had longed to buy foreign
merchandise cheap, went down in the vortex of general destruc-
tion. Said a statesman of the clay, “The people of America
went to War to improve their condition and throw off the burden
80av . PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE.
which the colonial. system laid on their industry. And when
their independence was attained they found it was a piece of
parchment. The arm which had struck for it in the ﬁeld was
palsied in the workshop; the industry which had been éum’ened
in the colonies was ems/zed in the free States ; at the close of the
Revolution the mechanics and manufacturers of the country
found themselves, in the bitterness of their hearts, independent—-
and ruined. Carey further says: “The dreams of riches from ‘
excessive importations suddenly came to a close like those of
1815. The nation had no mines to pay her debts. Industry,
the only legitimate and permanent source of individual happi-
ness and national wealth, power and'resources, was destroyed as
it has recently been by the inﬂux, and ﬁnally by the depreciation
of the price, of imported articles.” Webster thus depicts the
situation: “ From the close of the Revolution there came a
period of depression and distress. . . . Ship-owners, ship-build-
ers, mechanics, artisans, were destitute of employment and some
of them of bread. The cheaper labor of England supplied the
inhabitants of the Atlantic coast with everything. Ready-made
clothes, among the rest, from the crown of the head to the soles
of the feet, were for sale in every city. All these things came
free from any general system of imposts.”
The entire mercantile community began to see that England
and other foreign countries were about to control our external
trade and internal industry. Every packet ship. carried away
thousands of dollars in money, till there was none at home to
operate with. Our only products, those of the farm, were a
drug, and husbandry was full of bitter disappointments. There
would be a change.
The change came. Pamphleteers arose without number.
Newspapers took up the subject. Merchants, business men,
farmers, statesmen, all united in the cry, “ We have had enough
of free trade. It means utter neglect of ourselves, and virtual
sale of our energies and resources to older and better equipped
nations. We have political independence: we must have indus-
trial and commercial independence, else the victory of these
nations over us will be greater than our recent victory over
PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE. 81a
them.” They saw what John Stuart Mill afterwards incorporated
in his Principles of Political Economy: “What prevented the
rapid recuperation of the United States, after the peace of 1783,
was the system of free foreign trade, allowed to add its devasta-
tions upon industry to those of the Revolution.” Educated by
a dreadful experience, it became clear to all parties that the
power of industrial and commercial protection, so fatally absent
from the Articles of Confederation, must repose somewhere.
Of all thoughts which impelled toward a Constitution, this was
the strongest. Says Bancroft, “ Four causes, above others, ex-
ercised a steady and commanding inﬂuence. The new republic,
as one nation, must have power to regulate its- foreign commerce ,'
to colonize its large domain; to provide an adequate revenue;
to establish justice in domestic trade by prohibiting the separate
States from impairing the obligation of contracts.”
END OF FREE T RADE—From this time on till the Con-
stitution became a fact, both political and business sentiment
urged not only a stronger government, but one full of the paternal
instinct, able and willing to defend and encourage home industry
and all home interests. State responded to State in this behalf,
and statesmen echoed the plaints and pleas of statesmen. A
most assuring phase of the situation—one in strange contrast
with that of to-day, considering the opportunities for information
-—was the unanimity of artiﬁcers, mechanics, and workmen in
demanding, through public meeting and published resolution,
exemption from the degrading and ruinous competition forced
upon them by the free and inordinate inﬂux of foreign wares, on
whose home manufacture they depended for a living.
What was deemed sufﬁcient for all the purposes of a new and
more vigorous government found a place in the Constitution,
Sec. VIIL, clause I. “ Congress shall have power to lay and
collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and
provide for the common defense and general welfare of the
United States.” At the same time, in order to insure the States
against apprehension, and secure to them perfect interchange-
ability of their goods, and free internal commerce, it was ordained
that Congress should never have the power to levy “a tax or
duty on articles exported from any. State.”
39
82a, PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE.
NATURE OF THE NEW P0 WERS.—Thus endowed, the
new government started on its career. The writers of the F ed-
eralist saw enough in the above clauses to assure their country-
men that the protection they required for their infant industries
could now be guaranteed. As if by magic, the commercial and
industrial situation began to change from one of gloom and de-
pression to one of hope and activity. Says Bishop, “That the
productive classes regarded the Constitution of 1787 as con-
_ ferring the power and right of protection to the infant manufact-
ures of the country is manifest from the jubilant feeling excited
in various quarters upon the public ratiﬁcation of that instru-
ment.” The ﬁrst petition presented to the ﬁrst Congress (March,
1789) came from 700 mechanics, tradesmen and others, of Bal-
timore, lamenting the decline of manufactures since the Revolu-
tion, and praying that the efﬁcient government with which they
were then blessed, for the ﬁrst time, would render the country
“ independent in fact, as well as in name,” by early attention to
the encouragement "and protection of American manufactures and
by imposing on “all foreign articles which could be made in
America such duties as would give a decided preference to
their labors.” Fisher Ames said in his debate on the ﬁrst tariff
bill (1789), “ The want of an efﬁcient government to secure the
manufacturing interests and advance our commerce was long
seen by men of judgment, and pointed out by patriots solicitous.
to promote our general welfare.” Rufus Choate said, in 1842,
“ A whole people, a whole generation of our fathers, had in view,
as one grand end and purpose of our government, the acquisition
of the means of restraining, by governmental action, the impor-
tation of foreign manufactures, for the encouragement of manu-
factures and labor at home, and desired and meant to do this by
clothing the new government with this speciﬁc power of regulat-
ing commerce.” And Webster, in 183 3, “The protection of
American labor against injurious competition of foreign labor,
so far, at least, as respects general handicraft productions, is
known historically to have been one end designed to be obtained
by establishing the Constitution.” Says Tucker, in his History
of the United States, “ Merchants and ship-owners conﬁdently
PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE. 83a,
expected protection from the discriminating duties and naviga-
tion laws of other countries ; the manufacturing class hoped for
the encouragement of a protective impost; the agricultural class
expected to share in the general prosperity.” Leagues were
formed in various cities for the purpose of urging on Congress
an interpretation of the new powers conferred by the Constitution,
in the interest of protective encouragement. Charleston ship-
wrights followed the artisans of Baltimore with petitions to the
ﬁrst Congress. Similar petitions came in from Boston and New .
York.
The history of an almost universal sentiment at this time
shows that the constitutional clause relating to “ duties and
imposts,” and to provision for the “ common defense and general
welfare” had a well-understood meaning. There was no doubt
about the power of the government to “ raise revenue,” and none
about its right to frame a code of duties “for the regulation of
commerce ; in other words, a tariff, protective or prohibitory, as
the case might be.” This was the English thought of the power
as exercised at home, and it was the English phraseology when
it wished .to convey such power by statute. Hamilton so under-
stood it: so did Franklin, Madison, jefferson,‘ and Monroe.
Gallatin, a pronounced free trader, said he found such to be the
universal opinion of statesmen, on his entrance into public life.
There was no such reﬁnement as afterwards existed, and as is
claimed by some, still exists, to the effect that the power to raise
revenue by a tariff _does not carry the power to protect manu-
factures and general industries.
TARIFF AND FREE TRADE LEGISLATION. —— With
this interpretation of the Constitution, and under existing circum-
stances, the ﬁrst Congress would have been a disappointing, if not
recreant one, had it not come‘ promptly to the rescue of the
country with a tariff enactment. It was the ﬁrst general bill
passed by the ﬁrst Congress (the ﬁrst bill passed was one pre-
scribing an oath of ofﬁce), and reﬂected in its preamble the
sentiment then prevalent: “Whereas it is necessaryforthe
support of the government, for the discharge of the debts of the
United States, andfor Z/ze wzcom'agwzmt and proz‘eclz'mz of manu-
84a PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE.
faelures, t/zaz‘ duz‘z'es 6e laid on imported goods, wares and mere/zan-
dz'se, etc.” Statesmen North and South gave their sanction to
this comprehensive preamble. The bill invited debate of the
widest range. It is notable that the learning brought to bear on
its contents and merits has not been surpassed in future discus-
sions of the same subject. It not only bore on all the economic
phases of the question, but was exhaustive of the principle above
alluded to, that the Constitution designed to secure to infant
manufactures and struggling industries of the country the very
protection they needed, against the riper experience and cheaper
labor of Europe.
And as proof of the prevalence of the protective sentiment, we
hear nothing from the opponents of this ﬁrst bill in opposition to
the necessity for protection, nor to the fact that tariff legislation
of this kind was the best, if not the only known means, of
fostering home industry. All opposition of moment was as to
the method to be pursued. Such opposition came from those
‘ who were timid about too liberal a construction of the Consti'
tution, and fearful that the States might thus early commit
themselves to a policy which would rob them of theirrights. A
similar proof is furnished by the manufactures and industries
deemed worthy of encouragement. They embraced the iron and
steel of Pennsylvania, the glass of Maryland, the cotton, indigo
and tobacco of the South, the wool, leather, paper and ﬁsheries‘
of the East. The act was, in addition to its revenue phases, a
thoroughly protective measure, there being scarcely an article
introduced into it whose freedom from foreign competition was
not sought, and the desirability of whose home growth or pro-
duction was not clear. It was imperative legislation in every‘
sense, but especially so as tending to meet the English boast
that while America had achieved political independence, it had
been reconquered commercially, and was a more helpless and
useful appendage in-this sense than before. The act, there-
fore, was a second declaration of independence, far more valua-
ble to the government and people for the spirit it evinced and
the possibilities it contained, than for the mild duties it im~
posed.
PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE. 85a
This act was followed by Hamilton’s report (1790) on com-
merce and manufactures, which emphasized the principle of
protective legislation, embodied all the learning and experience
furnished by the respective nations touching the subject, more
than ever committed the budding nation and universal party sen-
timent to the operations of the act, and has ever since proved a
well of information for students of political economy. As to the
tendency of protection to foster monopoly, an argument much
used in after years, he enunciated the principle which long prac-
tice has proved to be correct, that internal competition would be
found an effectual corrective of monopoly and would in the end
give even a lower scale of prices for home manufactures than
could prevail for foreign. '
His interpretation of the powers conferred on the government
by the clause authorizing taxes, revenue, and the right to pro-
vide for the common defence and general welfare, has never been
excelled in perspicuity. All political parties have conﬁdently
reposed on it whenever they needed support for liberal construc-
tion views, and it may now be said to prevail without regard to
party lines.
The act of I 789, and the report of 1790, were the beginning
of historic and practical protection in the United States, which
continued, with such ebb and ﬂow as circumstances demanded
or for the time being excused, up to 1828. There were many
minor or amendatory tariff acts, most of which have been noted
in the previous chapters of this book, whose object was to
remodel existing acts without affecting the protective principle.
These dot our entire tariff history and need not be referred to
here. The ﬁrst commanding act after that of 1789 was what is
known as the “ Tariff of 1812.” Madison had urged revision in
his message. Calhoun, Lowndes, Clay and others sought, in
such revision, their opportunity to formulate what afterwards be-
came the “American System,” and which embraced, in substance,
full protective power on the part of the government, with the
additional thought that such power should no longer be exer-
cised as secondary to the power to raise revenue. The act was
a sweeping one, and raised the duties then existing quite one
86a PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE.
hundred per cent, while it ﬁxed a discrimination of ten per cent.
on goods imported in foreign vessels. ‘
Though this act, in conjuction with the further encouragement
to infant industries occasioned by the diminution of imports dur-
ing war times, gave an impetus to domestic manufactures they
had never before experienced, the measure was regarded as too
radical by the sections largely interested in shipping. The reac-
tion which naturally followed resulted in the tariff of 1816,
which was a wide departure from the rates of 1812, but which
still retained many protective features. Mr. Webster, and in
general statesmen from the East, regarded the higher rates as
oppressive to the home-carrying trade. Clay and Calhoun in-
sisted that this branch of industry should bide its time, with the
certainty of greater activity and proﬁt once our manufactures
had had time to grow under the fostering care of the govern-
ment. The time proved inopportune for such reduction of duties
as the act brought. A ‘ﬁnancial crisis came. Industry of every
kind lagged and dwindled. Blight and ruin came upon the
country.
A remedy was sought in the tariff act of 1824. Calhoun had
deserted Clay and joined Webster, but his place was ably ﬁlled
by Buchanan, of Pennsylvania. By this time a distinctive free
trade thought was abroad, especially in the minds of those who
represented the Southern planting interests and who, now that
slave labor had come to be regarded as essential to cotton-
raising, could not consistently foster the paid labor of the North.
The result of the struggle, pending which President Monroe in-
clined to the side of Protection and Internal Improvement, was
a distinctive afﬁrmation of what was now known as Clay’s
“American System.” Duties were not restored to the high
grade of 1812, but the protective features of the bill were con-
spicuous.
Encouraged by their success and by the improved condition
of the country under the operations of this act, its friends rallied
to the support of the tariff of 1828, whose leading feature was a
duty on wool and other raw materials, and therefore a more dis-
tinct introduction of the protective idea than had yet occurred.
PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE. 87a
It has become historic as the turning-point of New England sen—
timent respecting the protective system, Webster being found
among the champions of the act ; and likewise as the beginning
of that opposition on the part of the South which afterwards
(1832) took the form of nulliﬁcation.
This act led to bitter political turmoil and to the expediency
act of 18 32, which greatly scaled the duties of 1828, and of the
intermediate act of ‘1830, but which was yet offensive to Cal-
houn and the nullifying sentiment of the South, because it con~
tained no repudiation of the protective policy. Clay’s weakness
for compromises culminated in the conciliatory act of 1833,
which became known as the sliding scale tariff, because it pro-
vided that there should be ‘biennial reductions of the rates of
1832, till at the end of ten years a uniform rate of twenty per
cent. prevailed. This act was a practical abandonment of the
protective principle. It was notice to the people and the world
that the United States had departed from its early policy of
fostering home industry and paternally caring for its internal
development. Tariff was fully afloat on the sea of politics.
The ﬁnancial crash and industrial crush which came in 1837,
united with the political revolution in 1840, which left the Whigs
in the ascendant both as to the Presidency and the Congress,
gave them an opportunity of again testing the merits of pro-
tection, which, as a policy, found now an abiding-place in the
bosom of their party only. True, they were helped by members
of the opposition representing manufacturing sections, but they
were also opposed by some of their members representing plant-
ing sections. The act of 1842 was nevertheless a Whig measure,
and was at ﬁrst designed to be protective, but under the hostility
of Tyler, who mercilessly used his veto, it was well-nigh shorn
of its protective features and provided a schedule of rates lower
than those of 1828. Such as it was, it sufﬁced to lift the cloud
of depression which hung over the country and introduce an
era of prosperity and cheerfulness not witnessed since 1832.
So efﬁcacious had this act proved that all parties took advan-
tage of it during the election of 1844. Democrat and Whig
were committed to it, and, if anything, Democratic pledges were
88a PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE.
the loudest and longest. But the South made a savage and
persistent attack on it. Mr. Polk could not get away from his
section and his friends therein. The Vice-President, Mr. Dallas,
did not dare break with the administration of which he was a
part, and which he hoped to succeed. The tariff of 1846 was
on, and had drawn a tie vote in the Senate. It had been framed
so as to introduce ad valorem for speciﬁc duties, and as a strictly
revenue tariff without the incident of protection. It was there-
fore free trade, as far as such a thing had gone as a party tenet.
It was passed by the casting vote of Dallas, much to the chagrin
of his Pennsylvania political friends, and in clear violation of .the
pledges of the campaign. ' I
While this action led to the Whig successes of 1848, the
tariff legislation of 1846 escaped interference, a state of affairs
which existed up till 1857, the close of Pierce’s administration.
Then under Democratic auspices the act of that year (March 3)
was passed, which emphasized the free trade policy, and as the
sequel proved, struck the country a cruel blow by reducing
duties to the standards which prevailed before the war of 1812,
and had not been reached since, except at the end of the sliding
scale of 1833. The one excuse for its passage, to wit, the
redundancy of revenue, was speedily met by excessive importa-
tions, a paralysis of industry, and an exhaustive outpour of the
specie of the country. Six months ‘after its passage the country
was in the midst of such a panic as it had never witnessed.
No branch of industry escaped. The ruin was universal and
deep. I
What had been a paramount Whig doctrine now passed to
the new Republican party. judicious use of it in the campaign of
1860 aided the political revolution of that year. It was a period
of war and of liberal construction measures. The tariff of 1861
r as natural to the party and the \situation. It increased duties
all along the line of imports, and reintroduced the protective
principle which had prevailed during the ﬁrst forty years of the
government. This principle has remained undisturbed ever since
so far as the forms of law could preserve it. It ﬁnds con-
spicuous place in the subsequent amendatory acts, as well as the
Cotton seed ﬁrst planted


COTTON
PRODUCTION.
Year. Bales.
1791- 4,000.
1801— 96,000
1821-— 360,000
1831— 103,848.
1835- 1,254,328-
1840— 2.177.835-
1845— 2,394,503-
1850— 2,096,706.
1855— 2.847.339-
1860— 4,669,770-
1865— no record
1866»- 2,193,987.
1870“ 3,154,946-
1875— 3,832,991-
1880— 5,757,397-
1881— 6,589,329.
1882— 5,435,845-
1883— 6.959.000-
ISM—5.714.052-
1885—5,669,021.
1886—6,550,215.
1887—63513,623.
~ A/“
\r
_I
III'IIIII
\g:


l
1" -
t , , 1.‘-
RM‘
.~\ ,-

n‘
~ .
W"
“4.41--
at Jamestown 1621; ﬁrst
planted in the Carolinas
1733; in Georgia 1734;
in Louisiana 1742.
Cotton ﬁrst exported from
Charleston I747.
\Vhitney’s Cotton Gin in-
vented 1793.
.ftﬂll’i'"
ATES.
90a PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE.
leading tariff acts of 1874 and 1883. Of this last it must be
said, it was the result of a non-partisan commission appointed
to inquire into existing acts with a view of correcting their incon-
gruities, and readapting tariff rates to our newer and wider
diversiﬁed industries. In obedience to a spirit of reform, and in
accord with a sentiment against prohibitive rates, or even pro-
tective rates as to established industries, it, after the fullest in-
quiry, recommended measures which looked to a reduction of
duties to the extent of twenty-ﬁve per cent., on some articles
more, on some less. The act which was passed did not embrace
all the recommendations of the commission, but its report was
the basis of the bill. Enough time has not elapsed to test the
exact amount of reduction to be effected by the act, but it will
not reach the anticipated twenty-ﬁve per cent. Possibly this
fact may have emboldened the efforts of the Democratic party in
the Forty-eighth Congress (1884) to accomplish the reduction
contemplated in the Morrison bill, which sought to make protec-
tion an incident of revenue, and to reduce the rates of the act
of 1883 a sheer twenty per cent., without regard to the age,
character, or condition of the industry interested. This bill,
which came to be known as the “ Morrison horizontal reduction
bill,” did not command'the united support of the party. Its
title was stricken out, and it therefore fell, by the vote of some
forty Democrats who united themselves to the opposing Repub-
licans. '
FOR AND AGAINST—The earliest anti-protection or free
trade argument was as to the constitutional right to protect.
This may be said to have passed away. The second great free
trade argument was that protection fostered monopoly. This
was Calhoun’s standing argument. ‘He saw that it enured more to
the beneﬁt of free paid labor than to slave unpaid labor; in other
‘words, that its legitimate effect was encouragement of manu-
facturing as against planting industries; that is, the industries
which involved invention, skill and competition, as against those
which did not. He was right. But the thought of denouncing
that as monopoly which concerns a whole people would be too
idle’ for support to-day. The word and the argument are still
I
PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE. 91a
heard, but as the last resort of those who do not understand
their origin in tariff discussion, nor their logical effect under
changed industrial conditions and attitudes.
The free trade argument that protection tends to higher prices
was met by Hamilton theoretically, and is now met by protec-
tionists with indubitable evidence to the contrary. They are in
general not without fact to vindicate themselves. They point to
the fact that American manufactures of cotton which sold before
the protective tariff of 1824 for 24 ‘cents a yard were reduced
under that tariff to 734 cents. They point—we can only give a
few out of many instances—to the fact that under protection our
cotton textiles are found in the best Oriental and South American
markets, and that England has to resort to an adulteration of
similar manufactures in order to compete with us in price. They
point to the fact that under protection we have acquired a per~
fection in the manufacture of edge tools and agricultural imple-
ments which enables us to compete with the English home
market. They point to the fact that so long as England sup-
plied us with, and had a monopoly of, Bessemer steel rails, the
price in gold was $150 per ton, and that since this manufacture
has assumed its present proportions in this country under pro-
tection, the price has fallen to $40, to say nothing of our home
development, industrial independence, and the disbursement of
countless millions to American laborers.
All this is actual. They argue the same as to relative cost.
In the early days protection advanced prices, because industries
were not sufﬁciently numerous to invite the wholesome com-
petition which 7now prevails, But if prices advanced, so did
labor, so that there was money to buy necessaries. During the
low prices under the tariffof 1833, and during the panic of
1837, labor was stricken, and lay crushed with the general wreck.
When prices revived under the tariff of 1842, so did the price
of labor, and so it declined with the decline of prices in 1857.
The point is that cheapness or dearness is relative. That well-
paid labor can purchase more in a market where prices are
raised by tariff duties than underpaid labor, because the
necessaries of life are as a rule exempt from duty. That labor
92a PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE.
cannot be well remunerated when our markets are cheapened by
foreign competition, and when the capital which should be in-
vested at home is drawn off to pay for imported articles.
The abstract argument in favor of free trade is, that trading is
a natural right—the world a market. That some countries can,
by natural ﬁtness, certainly and always produce a class of goods
cheaper than others, and that it is wrong to prevent, by legisla-
tion, their general sale and a general opportunity to take advan-
tage of their cheapness. To this the protectionist replies that
he fully recognizes this law of trade, and is willing to see it
operate just so far as the goods or articles in question do not
compete with similar articles, or the possibility of the production
of similar articles, in his own country. That as to tea, coffee
and such things as cannot be produced here, they are, and ought
to be, free of duty, unless forsooth simple revenue requires such
duty; but that as to the products of other nations, whose cheap-
ness has been brought about by the long practice of hard pro-'
tec-tive systems, or by social and political degradation of the labor
which enters into them, it becomes the highest duty of the gov-
ernment to avoid competition with them, that our own labor may
live and our own capital ﬁnd employment. The protectionist
admits that this is selﬁsh, but claims that it is the selﬁshness
which all peoples have to exercise in order to exist, and further
that it is the selﬁshness of the law which subordinates the rights
of the few to the rights of the many, or the rights of enemies to
those of friends.
To the argument that other countries practice free trade, the
answer is that free trade is not known among nations except in
theory. That the modern drift of economic practice is against it.
That England, who has set up to convert the world to free trade,
is not, herself a free trade nation, but by means of a tariff on
wines, spirits, tobacco, and other articles she calls luxuries,
gathers a revenue sufﬁcient for her wants. That in the past
twenty years, and long after she declared free trade to be the
rule as to her manufactures, she protected her commercial
marine by the payment of direct subsidies, till France, Italy and
Germany were compelled to do the same, and this country has
PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE. 93a
been made to see the folly of not doing it, by the loss of her
carrying trade.
The free trader claims that while some articles are cheaper by
reason of our ability to manufacture them, the greater number
are not, and cannot be. The protectionist says this is not abso-
lutely desirable at present. That it ought to be a patriotic pride
with an American to pay more for a home-made article than for
a foreign one, the quality and utility being the same. That he
will be more than repaid for the difference by the fact that he
has thereby encouraged a home industry and contributed to a
home market. That every cent which thus goes out of a man’s
pocket is a contribution to the comfort of his surroundings, to
the happiness of his neighbors, to the erection of homes, to the
welfare of labor, to the building up of. a home market for cattle,
wool, wheat, corn, butter, cheese, etc., for which there would not
otherwise be a demand, or, if so, one so remote and foreign as to
rob him of all proﬁt by the cost of transportation, not to say the
cost of intermediate agency.
A school of free traders who are really protectionists, and of
protectionists who are really free traders, have pretty nearly
agreed that the true measure of protection is found in the differ-
ence between the cost of an article at home and abroad. They
say that this cost represents labor, and this difference the differ-
ence in the price of labor, and that when this difference is covered
American labor has all the protection it can ask or ought to
have. The straight-out protectionist says this is illusory. It
leaves capital out of the question, which is even more timid than
labor. It further compels an adjustment which is impracticable,
for the reason that labor is differently paid in all older countries,
and because the political and social institutions of those countries
are different. Where caste prevails, the laborer has no induce-
ment to rise above his station, and is content to take his stipu-
lated wage, however low it may be. But here he is a man, a
voter, has every encouragement to rise himself and see his chil-
dren rise. He has, or may have, social caste, which he is in
duty bound to sustain. That therefore labor conditions are not
the same, and any argument based on simple differences of labor
94a PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE.
prices is unfair. Our standards ought not to be based on those
abroad, but should be subject to the laws of supply and demand
at home. Hamilton’s idea of protection was that it did not, and
should not, invite competition of any kind from abroad, but that
it depended for its equity and success on the competition it
created at home. This was his answer to all argument that it
favored monopoly, and it was equally an answer to the argument
that either our labor or capital should be subject to foreign
standards, or be gauged by foreign rules or conditions. The
free trade argument that protection tends to overproduction in
the United States, and to periods of depression and panic, is
answered by square denial. England is as subject to periodic
visitations of glut and depression as this or any other protective
country. The facts are on the side of the protectionist. The
year 1884 was a period of depression in the iron trade. With
those who look no further, the cry of over-production byreason
of too much protection answers for argument. But every iron-
producing country in the world was then subject to the same de-
pression, let the reason for it be what it may. And the English
-iron trade was as much, if not more, depressed than all. The
logic of the free trade situation required that she should be
exempt. And just here the protectionist uses with most vigor
the historic arguments at hand. He points to the fact that the
repeal of protective laws has inevitably resulted in depression
and disaster, and that a return to them has eventuated in renewed
prosperity and conﬁdence. This is certainly true of the periods
designated by 1819—24, 1837-42, 1857—61.
The panic of 1873 is the only historic exception, and this was
due not to_those legitimate and sober relations between capital
and labor which protective or free trade legislation is supposed
to effect, but to speculative ramiﬁcations incident to a redundant
currency, the direction of wild, unsettled, post-war energies into
new and unknown channels, and the sudden recall, by the
Chicago and Boston ﬁres, of $2 50,000,000 of capital to other and
imperative uses. How long protection postponed the panic, no
free trader has agreed to tell. Nor has any one condescended
to inform the world how much of the speedy and substantial re-
PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE. 95a
covery from its ruinous effects was due to the presence of a
liberal protective system.
But as to this panic, these things are purely local. The laws
of economy do not permit simply a home search for causes
which were pervasive of the commercial world. The panics of
1819, 1837 and 1857 were conﬁned to this country. That of
187 3 was general, and far more disastrous in Europe than here.
Twelve hundred millions of our bonds were held abroad.
Stringency there caused a refusal of further credit. The seeds
of contagious panic were sown broadcast. It was a matter of
credit and not of industry. Indeed, our mills did not stop at
all, or as in other panics. Banks did not break so numerously.
Internal commerce was sustained. All recuperative forces had
play, and the rescue was prompt. Weeven got rid of hamper-
ing foreign debt. Economy became a rule. We sold more
than we bought because we did not, owing to high tariff rates,
become a dumping ground for foreign manufactures, as after the
Revolution and the war of 1812. Many have said the panic of
1873 was a blessing.
As to the American farmer, the free trader is content with the
argument that he ought not to be made to pay high prices for the
commodities he uses. The protectionist points to the fact that
all manufactured commodities are on an average twenty-ﬁve per
cent. cheaper than before 1860, and that then some eighty per
cent. of them were made abroad and twenty per cent. at home,
while now eighty per cent. are made at home and twenty per
cent. abroad. Even if prices for these manufactures were the
same, the farmer has gained by protection the advantage of a
home market for his produce, that is, a saving to the extent at
least of the cost of transporting it to markets three to ﬁve
thousand miles away.‘ Transportation is always dead loss. Our
home market is the one the farmer should foster. It is certain, is
at his door, is growing as fast as our own manufactures, is already
large enough to consume eighty per cent. of our wheat and
ninety—two per cent. of our com, and even as to our surplus is
being fast forestalled by the English design to get cheap food
for her workmen through Australian and East Indian wheat.
96a, PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE.
It is impossible to follow the many minor arguments used by
free traders and protectionists. Nor is it necessary. Many of
them are individual, many shaded to suit party bent, many
demagogic. It is equally impossible to go through the hard chap-
ters of political economy, written to prove the absolute rectitude
of either free trade or protection. Whatever may be said of
them as abstract questions, nations are relative. They exist and
prosper by their relations. Independence and prosperity are de-
sirable. This country had to face the problem of political inde-
pendence. Peace was beautiful and desirable, but peace meant
humiliation, subserviency. The protective agency of horrid war
had to be evoked. Political independence was the beginning of
a grand commercial and industrial battle. We have learned to
trust the agency of protection to win this victory also. It is the
old question, in another form, of peace and subordinancy, or legal,
industrial war and second independence. The weapons of Great
Britain alone are countless millions of capital and machinery
equal to the labor of seven hundred millions of men. We must
meet this mighty menace, or suffer overthrow. To exist indus-
trially we must earn the right to exist. Eternal vigilance is the
price of our industrial liberty. If overcome in the struggle, let
it not be said of us that we were too spiritless or too fond of
dreams to try the arts of protection which have raised other
nations to opulence and commercial independence.
The modern era of American protection began with the tariff
of 1861. It was slightly affected by the Act of 1874, and further
by the Act of 1883. The latter Act enlarged the free list and
lowered duties on many leading articles. It was designed to
reduce the income from customs about $25,000,000. This it did
not do. For three or four years there was a material reduction, but
by 1888 the income was as high as in 1883, or about $214,000,000.
It would seem, therefore, that as an economic fact the lowering
of rates of duty does not necessarily eventuate in a reduced
income from customs. ' -
This era is worthy of profound study by all economists, for it
has answered many questions respecting tariff and free trade. It
has witnessed the roots of protection sinking deeper and deeper
PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE. 97a,
into our industrial and commercial system, and becoming an
essential part of it. It saw without alarm the insertion of a
clause in the Constitution of the Southern Confederacy prohibit-
ing forever the duties on imports, which clause was by no means
unnatural considering the necessity for propitiating foreign senti-
ment, the fact that the same Constitution provided for unpaid
labor, that a single product of the soil was to enlist the energy
of the people, and that home manufactures were not contem-
plated. It braved attack by theorists, politicians and parties at
at home, and by secret enemies abroad, and only yielded to
modiﬁcation at the hands of its friends, and when the occasion
seemed proper. During ‘ten years of Democratic ascendency in
the national House of Representatives it was impossible to carry
through even so apparently innocent a measure as the Morrison
twenty per cent. “horizontal reduction” bill, yet the tariff of
1883 became possible by reason of the small and temporary
Republican majority in the Forty-seventh Congress.
This era has developed a policy of protection, which is, that
the proper duty to impose on an imported article is one which
most nearly equalizes the labor that enters into its production.
Thus the old questions of monopoly, of making the “ rich richer
and the poor poorer,” of discriminating in favor of the few and
against the many, have largely resolved themselves into the
single question of protecting American labor. It is well known
that labor in Great Britain and on the Continent of Europe is
from one to two hundred per cent. lower than here, and a large
part of the economic statistics gathered abroad for the past few
years by our consuls and others have been for the purpose of
showing precisely the difference between American and Euro-
pean labor as it enters into speciﬁc articles of manufacture. The
era has enabled both economists and politicians to run instruc-
tive parallels between the respective protective epochs of the
country and to draw still more valuable contrasts between the
free-trade and protective epochs. What followed the low tariffs
of 1816, 1832 and 1846 can be safely counted on as following
similar sweeps toward free-trade—closed mills, furnace ﬁres out,
farmers bankrupt, the laborer a tramp, disaster and ruin every-
40
98a PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE.
where. The protectionist claims this result to be inevitable, a
law established by early experience and absolutely conﬁrmed by
later. He points with fervor to the vindication of his most san-
guine theories which this era affords—to the factory doubling
the price of adjoining farms; to the village growing by the mill
and bursting into a city; to the railroad and new marts of trade;
to quick and almost universal intercommunication; to the de-
velopment of our incalculable natural resources, and to our vast
manufactures better than any in the world, and as cheap save
only in the wages which enter into them. And he triumphantly
claims that if the duty on importations is the bounty to labor
which lifts it above the degrading and dangerous conditions of
Europe, and enables our artisans to retain their self-respect and
independence, it is the Republic’s best investment.
This protective era had lasted for more than a quarter of a
century without serious disturbance when, at the beginning of
1888, it witnessed a closer disposition of the protection and free-
trade lines and bolder and squarer fronts than ever before in our
political history. This came about by reason of the annual mes-
sage of President Cleveland to the Fiftieth Congress in Decem-
ber, 1887. ‘This celebrated state paper was devoted almost
wholly to the tariff system and tariff laws, and was very decided
in its opposition to the principle of protection as well as to ex-
isting rates of duty on wool and all articles ranking as neces—
saries. The message had the excuse of a superabundant revenue
which all political parties were anxious to reduce, but respecting
methods of doing which they were wide apart. Whatever other
excuse it had must be looked for in the President’s solemn econ-
omic convictions, or else in the necessity for a decided and afﬁrm-
ative party polity.
The outcrop of this message is an historic study. Itwas an
earnest, candid paper, and its form of presentation as well as its
time declared it to be in the nature of an address to the Ameri-
can people through their representatives in Congress assembled.
It therefore had all the weight of a deliberate and special an’
nouncement. Its reasoning was that which has already been
given in this history as common to free-traders—the tariff system
PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE. 99a,
was “ vicious, inequitable and illogical ; ” it tended to monopoly;
it made consumers pay for necessaries a price equal to the cost
of production plus the duty; it was an unnecessary system as
then sustained, since the government had more revenue than it
could use.
The immediate and visible effects of the document were three-
fold. Ist. It was accepted with great pleasure by the free-traders,
who received from it an amount of encouragement such as had
not been extended by any administration since 1846, if ever.
Without reference to the conclusiveness of its logic, they accepted
it as foreshadowing an agreeable line of policy for the adminis—
tration and the party, and as inviting a trial of political strength
between the free-trade and protection doctrines pending the next
presidential election. So regarding it, they, with becoming
frankness and in a spirit of jubilation, hailed it as marking if not
the end of the protective era at least the beginning of an epoch
in which they could assume an active afﬁrmative without the
usual clogs of political policy and hindrances of party expediency.
There was henceforth to be nothing vapid or dream-like in their
proclamations nor disguised in their attitude. Their press praised
the President for his manly utterances and the message became
oracular from their standpoint.
2d. A second immediate effect of the message was that pro-
duced in England and reﬂected back to us almost instantly by
cablegram and newspaper. Historically, economically, politi-
cally, indeed, however considered, this effect is most serious to
us as showing a schooled impression of the signiﬁcance of such
a departure as the President’s message indicated, as well as
showing the deep warmth of admiration inspired in the bosom
of free-trade England by American acceptance and inculcation
of her commercial theories and industrial practices. But let this
foreign free-trade sentiment speak for itself.
It may be taken for granted that the President has not acted without previ-
ously consulting the leaders of the Democratic party and securing their approval.
He and they have taken up again the old free trade policy of the South Carolina
politicians, unconnected with what, in the jargon of American politics, was called
the sectional question—Saturday Review.
His terse and telling message has struck a blow at American protection such as
could never have been struck by any free trade league. He has ﬁred a shot at pro-
100a, PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE.
tectionists which will be all the more effective for his refusal to discuss the theoretic
issue.— Tlge .Slpeez‘ator.
When the inevitable consequences of adherence to a protectionist tariff are set
forth by a man in Mr. Cleveland’s position in the language which he has used, free
trade becomes at once a living issue—London Standard.
It is calculated that to give effect to Mr. Cleveland’s policy duties to the extent
of $80,000,000 a year, or two-ﬁfths of the entire customs revenue, must be surren-
dered. This may not establish “ free trade” in the strict sense of the term, but it
will to a great extent make trade free—London Times.
We must regard the message of the President of the United States as being a
distinct pronouncement in favor of free trade—London Post.
To convert the United States is indeed a triumph. The Cobden Club will hence-
forth set up a special shrine for the worship of President Cleveland, and send him
all its publications gratis. Cobden founded free trade; Cleveland saved it.—Cao/e-
gram lo IV. R. Herald signed “A Mernoer of Parliament.”
His real meaning is that the scheme by which the artiﬁcial fabric of domestic
enterprise has been built up in America is fundamentally vicious. He demands in
effect that there should be a tariff for revenue purposes only.-'—London Ironmonger.
The message of President Cleveland to the United States Congress is the prelim-
inary to a movement which, we trust, will gain in strength.- The London Iron.
The facts set forth in the President’s message, though not new, are now brought so
prominently under the notice of the American Congress and the American citizen
that a violent stimulus must be given to the party which advocates entire freedom
of trade—London Iron and Steel Trades yournal.
It is certain that another ﬁerce contest is now pending in America over the prin-
ciples at issue. If it terminates, as is to be hoped it will, in the relaxation of those
imposts which now vexatiously hamper commercial intercourse between Great
Britain and the United States, an impetus will be given to our home trade which
will go far to make up for the depression of late years.—Haddz'ngtons/zire (Seat/and)
Courier.
“It is a condition which confronts us; not a theory.” Precisely so. Similar
words have been used in this country by Adam Smith, Richard Cobden and Sir
Robert Peel. President Cleveland has precipitated the inevitable struggle between
free trade and protection in the United States, and that is tantamount to saying that
he is on the side of free trade—Glasgow Herald. ,
If once the United States ﬁnds herself on the road to free trade she will hardly
know where to stop, for the principle which President Cleveland, as the head of the
Democratic party, lays down is really that no import duties are justiﬁable which are
not levied solely for revenue.- T Ize Scotsman. .
The tariff reform which the President recommends goes as far, at least, as the
abolition, or reduction, of duties on raw materials. Should Congress give effect to
this proposal the immediate result would be an enormous stimulus to English indus-
try.—Pe0ple’s (Dundee) yournal.
English free traders would be well advised if they moderated the ecstacy of their
jubilation over President Cleveland’s message. Every word which they say in its
favor will be used as a powerful argument against the adoption of its recommenda-
tions—London Pall Mall Gazette.
3d. The message made a deep impression, amounting almost
to alarm, on the manufacturing community, while the protection-
ists, in so far as they found exponents in the leaders of the Re-
publican party, regarded it as a challenge to contest to the death
before the people for the supremacy of free trade or protection.
After the ﬁrst ﬂushes of surprise, occasioned by so heroic and
PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE. 101a,
unusual a paper, had passed away, the gauntlet thrown into the
lists was cheerfully taken up by statesmen and economists, and
the protective doctrines were carefully overhauled and presented
_ anew in the halls of legislation, in magazine and pamphlet, in
ponderous book and enthusiastic campaign speech.
What became known as the Mills tariff bill, supposed to have
been framed for the express purpose of meeting the President’s
views, and which made heavy breaches through the Act of 188 3,
was reported to the House of Representatives about March 1,
1888. It proved to have been hastily and crudely devised, yet
was anxiously and resolutely pushed by its friends, who saw the
necessity of committing their party to it before the meeting of
the Democratic National Convention at St. Louis, June 5, 1888,
if they expected to secure the renomi'nation of Mr. Cleveland,
who had made himself their especial favorite. The wars of argu—
ment pro and con made valuable contributions to the literature
of “ Protection and Free Trade,” and it is doubtful if any period
in our political history ever witnessed greater earnestness in dis-
pute or a ﬁrmer determination on the part of leaders to measure
the strength of their respective parties by protection and free
trade issues. While the arguments in general were such as we
have been made somewhat familiar with in this historic review
of “ Protection and. Free Trade,” those advanced by the Repub—
licans, who regarded the protective system as their own and the
subject of direct attack, were given especial freshness and force
by reason of their familiarity with the questions involved. They
corrected the President’s blunder that 4,000 articles were subject
to duty by showing that the entire dutiable list did not exceed
one-third that number.
To the charges that the tariff was a tax “ wrung from the peo-
ple for the beneﬁt of our manufactures quite beyond a reasona-
ble demand ; ” that manufacturers were “ organized combinations
to maintain their advantage; ” that duties were “ taxes fastened
with relentless grasp upon the clothing” of the people—the pro-
tectionists showed that out of our $683,418,981 of importations
in 1887, $23 3,093,659 came in free of duty, being over one-third
of the whole, and that this free list embraced goods we could
102a, PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE.
not produce at home, and which could not compete with our
own manufactures. _ They further showed that the $450,000,000
worth of articles upon which duties were levied were mostly of
the high-priced kind and ranked as articles of luxury, ornament
or appetite, such as wines, liquors, cigars, silks, satins, dresses,
broadcloths, porcelain, statuary, painting, glassware, diamonds,
etc., the duties on which were paid cheerfully by the rich alone.
And further, that the value of all the imported articles which
could possibly affect the comfort of our poor, such as sugar, fruit,
rice, animals and other food supplies, amounted to only $112,-
000,000, upon which a duty of $65,000,000 was collected, but
that, strange to say, no free trader had been found bold enough
to insist, ﬁrst of all, on entire removal of the duties from these
articles, nor even, secondarily, without providing a government
bounty for those whose unprotected industry would be destroyed
by foreign competition.
The free-traders singled out “ raw materials used in manufac-
tures ”_ as especially worthy of a place on the free list. These
are wool, ﬂax, hemp, seeds, iron ore, pig-iron, coal, marble, etc.
They were imported in 1887 to the extent of $80,000,000, and
paid a duty of $29,000,000, or about 36 per cent.——a low relative
rate. Their claim was that the free importation of these articles
would protect and beneﬁt home manufactures. To this the pro-
tectionists answered that the free list already contained $106,-
389,000 of such articles; that the above $80,000,000 on which
~ duties were still levied were such as came into direct competition
with the products of 2,000,000 of American farmers and hun—
dreds of thousands of laborers in shops, mines and furnaces;
that such duties had been advocated by every President from
Washington to Polk; that labor was a prime object of protection
according to the best protective logic and very latest protective
policy; that while these articles were usually classed as raw ma-
terials by factory-men, they were really not so to the farmer,
miner and furnace man, for they represented the labor and skill
of the latter and were as much their completed products as the
ﬁnest outputs of the ﬁnal manufactory; and ﬁnally, that as the
principle of protection applied to all labor alike, no good reason
PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE. 1034
could be given why wool should be made free and woolen goods
protected. Wool is as much the completed article of the farmer
as cloth is of the manufacturer or the coat is of the tailor; and
so pig-iron is as much the completed article of the furnace man
as the watch-spring is of the shop. If the American farmer is to
be thrown into competition with the wool grower of Australia or
Buenos Ayres to the destruction of his ﬂeece and ﬂocks, why
should the American manufacturer be protected against compe-
tition with the looms of Manchester and Leeds? All thought
of drawing a line between grades of labor or different kinds of
industries must be reprehensible in the extreme, for that would
be to foster the very monopoly and class favoritism which free-
traders had always condemned.
As to the free-trader’s assertion that tariffs were put in opera-
tion for the beneﬁt of privileged classes, the protectionist replied
that no system of American protective legislation was ever de-
vised in the interest of a class, but for the general development
of the resources and the encouragement of the industries of the
country. If classes took advantage of the system, or if capital
was emboldened to go out in certain channels under the system,
that was a matter which did not concern the prime object and
could not be controlled by legislation. England’s tariff system
did not build up her landed aristocracy, but tended to break it
down by increase of her general wealth and its distribution among
a greater number of persons. '
What particularly intensiﬁed the tariff discussions of 1888
were the facts that President Cleveland not only fairly, fully and
boldly stated the case of the free-traders in his message to the
Fiftieth Congress, but fortunately or unfortunately singled out
certain articles of import as best calculated to prove his argu-
ments in favor of reduced duties, and among such articles wool
was made signiﬁcant because it entered into clothing, an article
of prime necessity. The President’s suggestion that the reduc-
tion of the duty on wool would help to reduce the surplus
revenue was answered by ﬁgures furnished by the tariff of 1883.
In that year wool to the value of $8,915,149 was imported, the
duty on which was $3,206,201. During the ﬁscal year ending
104a, PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE.
june 30, 1887, wool to the value of $18,206,988 was imported,
on which a duty of $6,390,055 was collected. Yet the rate of
duty on high grade wools was fully 10 per cent., and on low
grade wools fully 15 per cent., lower under the tariff of 1883 than
under the previous tariff of 1874. The effect of that reduction
was manifest in another way, too. In 1883 there were 50,360,-
243 sheep in the United States, yielding 262,000,000 pounds of
wool. In 1888 there were 44,759,314 sheep, yielding 228,300,-
000 pounds. As a leading protectionist jocularly put it: “If a
reduction of 15 to 20 per cent. in the duty on wool slaughtered
5,600,000 sheep in ﬁve years, how long would the remaining
44,500,000 sheep survive an entire repeal of the wool duty ? ”’
When the free-trader made his argument general, that reduced
duties would reduce the revenue from customs, he was answered
by ﬁgures from the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury
showing that the customs’ income from iron, steel and silk im-
ports increased after the act of 1883, though that act lowered the
rate of duty. The same with knit goods. In 1881, 1882, 1883
the imports of knit goods were 1,318,807 pounds, paying a duty
of $1,722,483. The act of 1883 lowered the duty on these goods
from 10 to I 5 per cent. Yet the years 1884, 1885, 1886 showed
an import of these goods of 3,433,480 pounds, an increase of
2,1 14,573 pounds, and a total duty of $3,617,864, or an increased
revenue of $1,894,881. Still more striking as to worsted goods.
The act of 188 3 itself, and what was claimed to be an erroneous
classiﬁcation under it, reduced the duty on worsted cloths 15 to
20 per cent. In 1882 the importation of these cloths was valued
at $500,000. In 1887 they were imported to the extent of
$5,000,000. The increase of revenue from this 20 per cent. re-
duction of duty alone was 500 per cent.
To the free-trade doctrine that a reduction of duty lowers the
price of home manufactures to the consumer, and an increase of
duties raises their price to the consumer, the protectionist re—
plied with facts and ﬁgures, all of which were curious and some
of a startling nature. Confessing that if the free-trade position
was a true one, the policy of protection could not but be a bad
one, he challenged the free-trader to show a single manufactured

SAMUEL J. RANDALL.
GEORGE E EDMUNDS
.. 4.0?
/
/
2
. . ., f/e.
/
\
\vv\\\\\\\\_
\
./. .u.\\\~» ‘I.
\ ._
\
._.
/.././,/./.././w
. / //
,/
//
,2,
a
6
L7
/
. f
,

.INGALLS
JOHN ]
JOHN G. cARLIsLE.
105a
106a PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE.
commodity that was not cheaper in the United States to-day
under our protective system than it was in 1860 under the free-
trade, or “ tariff for revenue only," system. He showed, further,
by comparative ﬁgures, that nine-tenths of the manufactured com-
modities used by the farmers and artisans of our country, such
as clothing, household goods, furniture, implements of husbandry,
tools, etc., are as cheap in this country as in England, and in
many instances cheaper. This comes about naturally, for two
reasons, one, at least, of which is often overlooked.
(1) A heavy part of any duty imposed on imports is neces-
sarily borne by the foreign producer who, in order to enter a
protected market at all, must reduce the price of his goods and
sacriﬁce a part of his usual proﬁt. No one pretends to say that
an English manufacturer of iron, woolens or silks would bill his
goods to an American importer for as great a price under a high
tariff as if the tariff was removed and he had the whole market
to himself. This much then of the tariff tax is paid by the
foreigner, and it is often a large per cent. of the duty imposed.
(2) The balance of the tax, or duty, is more than met by the
home manufacturer, by reason of the competition he is forced
to encounter just as soon as home manufactories are estab—
lished.
Speaking of the American proposition to increase their rates of
duty under the tariff act of 1842, Mr. Bright said in a speech in
the English Parliament: “America as an independent country
has been a more valuable customer to England than she could
possibly have been as a colony. On all the goods exported to
America during the last quarter of a century you have made a‘
net proﬁt of 40 per cent.” The American manufacturers of cot-
ton, wool and silk goods cleared a very small per cent. proﬁt from
188 3 to 1888, and it is very questionable whether an annual proﬁt
of over ten per cent. is now possible in this country on any
thoroughly established manufacture. ,
In 1860 a square foot of plate-glass cost $2. 50. A duty of about
58 per cent. was placed on it by the tariff of 1861. A square
foot of plate—glass can now be bought for $1.00. The industry
has grown enormously and employs thousands of men at high
wages. -
... . 4.... . .
1.08.0...” I.

\\‘
\‘\ \ ‘
a
Q
,1
\
1
U
1
C
t G
as.

. MORRILL.
o ‘it I;
Huonoanaflunanoiﬂooou
s ooooo'ooo/h 0000
i9 o O 00 O I! O
I! 00 O IIIO»OO 0 0
$33.. is...
‘I!’ ‘O’
‘I I
IUSTIN S
\I'
|,\
. I
.. I “I I’ 1111'
ON’ ‘ha,
. I! 0"]! I ./.
O 0 I
I! 6 I ..
. u¢-V$V/.
‘to!
\\\\
a“ ‘ ‘
1‘-
‘\
.\\‘\\
I...
0 O! 9!
.0 dentin‘.
O I
Q. no
‘D
WM. D. KELLEY.
THOMAS B. REED, RDGER Q. MILLS.
107a
108a, PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE.
In 1860 salt was free of duty. The price at Chicago was $2.00
per barrel. The tariff of 1861 placed a duty of 8 cents per 100
pounds on it. It sold in Chicago in 1880 at 75 cents a barrel,
and-in remote Western marts in 1887 at 60 cents a barrel.
In 1860 there were three mills in the country running on,
worsted cloths at poor wages and with an insigniﬁcant output.
The tariff act of 1861 imposed a heavy duty on worsted products.
In 188 3 there were 5,000 looms, employing 75,000 workmen,
consuming 50,000,000 pounds of wool, producing 15,000,000
yards annually, with a capital of $20,000,000. Worsted cloths
were then 40 per cent. cheaper than in 1860, and the total im-
port was only $500,000. After the lower rate under the act of
1883 the imports of worsteds increased to $5,000,000 in 1887,
and one-third of our looms were idle.
In 1860 pottery-making employed two to three thousand
people, and carried a duty of 24 per cent. The tariff of 1861 laid
a duty ranging from 40 to 55 per cent. By 1888 the industry
existed in every State in the Union except Florida, and as much
could be bought for $2.50 as for $4.00 in 1860.
The act of 1861 protected cotton goods heavily, and their price
was neverso low as in 1888. American cotton goods are the
cheapest and best in the world’s markets. In 1860 only 4,000
workmen were engaged in the silk business. Under the-protec-
tion of 60 per cent. afforded by the act of 1861, the industry em-
ployed, in 1888, 40,000 workmen, $17,000,000 capital, and turned
out a product of $50,000,000 annually. Prices declined 56 per
cent. on silk thread, 62 per cent. on handkerchiefs, 54 per cent.
on ribbons, 50 per cent. on laces, and 30 to 35 per cent. on dress-
goods. V
Until within a few years soda-ash was imported at a cost of
$48 per ton. A duty of % cent a pound brought English capital
over to help develop the Syracuse salt region. In two years the
price fell to $30 a ton, and the product competed with English
soda—ash, though wages paid here was $1.75 per day and in
' England $1.00.
And'so the protectionist ‘multiplied his instances to show that
duties did not necessarily increase the cost of goods to the con-
PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE. 109a,
sumer, till he nearly exhausted the list of dutiable articles. It
was admitted that sugar was an exception. It was simply an
article upon which a quick and sure revenue could be raised.
On this principle it had been made to stand a war rate of duty,
which the protectionist now asked to have modiﬁed, but which
the free-trader did not insist upon lowering, at least not until he
had ﬁrst secured a reduction on other classes of articles.
' The protectionist even carried his ﬁgures to the point of show~
ing that entire removal of a duty and the introduction of an
article to the free list did not necessarily eventuate in a cheap-
ened price. He instanced tea and coffee. The former paid a
duty of 15 cents a pound under the act of 1870 and the latter a
duty of 3 cents a pound. The act of 1872 abolished both of
these duties and made them free. Six months afterwards the
I common grades of both tea and coffee averaged a cent a pound
higher, and neither have been so cheap since. Of the ten mil-
lions of dollars which the coffee duty brought annually into our
treasury we not only entirely deprived ourselves, but actually be-
gan to pay it to the Brazilian government, which imposed an export
‘ tax on coffee just as soon as it learned that the United States
had removed the duty from it. And this argument would hold
true, said the protectionist, on every article not produced in the
United States, or upon which the foreign producer could avoid
our home competition.
THE POOR MAN’S WA GES—The free-trader drew this
picture: “The poor man receives his wages at the desk of his
‘ employer, and perhaps beforeihe reaches home is obliged, in a
purchase for family use of an article which embraces his own
labor, to return in the payment of the increase in price which
the tariff permits the hard-earned. compensation of many days
of toil.” The protectionist would allow no such bid as this for
the favor of the poor man to stand, but showed by ﬁgures, cov-
ering nearly every branch of industry, that the American laborer
received as wages from 50 to 150 per cent. more than in Europe;
that food of every kind—beef, pork, mutton, ﬂour, butter, cheese,
bacon, etc., except sugar—is cheaper in America than in European
markets; that clothing, cotton and woolen, worn by working-
110a, PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE.
men, including blankets, etc., is as low here as in London or
Liverpool. It is only the expensive grades of cloth and cloth-
ing that cost in England and on the Continent less than in the
United States. The quantity and quality of food of laboring
men is confessedly greater and better here than in Europe.
The American laborer does not travel eastward across the ocean
to better his condition, but the European laborer comes to
America, where labor is respected, and is better paid, fed and
clothed than in any part of Europe or Asia. As to the Ameri-
can workman, therefore, the question of the tariff is purely one
of wages. There are many articles of manufacture which are
nearly all labor. A ship is said to be 90 per cent. labor. A ton
of coal, or of pig-iron, or even of Bessemer steel, is in great part
labor. So of a long list of manufactures. Leave these articles
unprotected by a duty, and the labor that enters into them and
gives them their chief value is thrown open to competition with
the cheaper labor of foreign countries. This the American
laborer is not prepared to stand, for here he is a citizen, not
ground down by caste, with tastes and ambitions of his own,
perhaps paying off on a little home, or depositing in a savings
bank, and trying to give his children opportunities he did not
himself possess.
MATERIAL GRO WT H—The free-trader threw great stress
on the argument that the tariff system conduced to organized
combinations, such as trusts, to regulate the supply and main-
tain the price of commodities. The protectionist replied, when-
ever such result is proved, and is oclearly traceable to the tariff,
abolish "the duty at once, and let such commodities come into
competition with the world’s goods. But beware of this heroic
remedy, for it strikes at labor as hard as at monopoly. Labor
itself is often in as formidable a combination as capital, and the
blow may crush it. But unjust and unlawful combinations,
whether of capital or labor, are not a necessary result of tariff
legislation. They would exist without tariff laws, and the so-
called trusts do exist in many industries unaffected by such laws
—as in petroleum, cotton-seed oil, domestic whiskey, etc. The
mention of them by the free-trader was only for the purpose of
PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE. 111a
raising false impressions, and diverting attention from the real
object of tariff laws and the substantial advantages of a protec-
tive system. This could not be successfully done, for protection
‘ had reared monuments of industry, enterprise and development
to such a height as that their summits could never be obscured
by clouds of rhetorical dust about their bases. Pointing to the
experience of the twenty-ﬁve years between 1861 and 1887, the
protectionist asked judgment on the practical workings and
grand results of his policy. What was seen therein was the
fulﬁlled prophecy of such statesmen as Washington, Hamilton,
Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Clay, Webster, and Calhoun when
in 1816 he made his famous appeal in favor of the protection
and importance of manufactures to the “national strength and
perfection of our institutions,” and in “binding more closely our
widespread republic.”
And what was seen in reality was something which startled
the world and vindicated the wisdom of that fatherhood which
the government had chosen to extend toward enterprise and en-
lightenment in the shape of industrial and commercial protec-
tion. Despite the fact that during those twenty-ﬁve years mil-
lions of men were, for four years, turned from producers into
destroyers, that human lives were sacriﬁced by the hundreds of
thousands, that treasure was expended and property destroyed
by the billions of dollars, the country increased in population at
the rate of 1,000,000 a year, or at a greater rate than England,
France, Germany and Austria combined. Our wealth grew from
$17,000,000,000 to $43,000,000,000, or at the rate of nearly
$1,000,000,000 a year. Mulhall, the English statistician, who
shows no favor to us, says this republic for a quarter of a cen-
tury has laid up every year $88 5,000,000—almost half as much
as the saving of the whole world. He gives the last annual
product of Great Britain’s manufactories, mines and forests as
$4,500,000,000, an increase of 30 per cent. since 1850. The
same products in the United States, as appears by the census of
1880, were valued at $5,500,000,000, an increase of 160 per cent.
since 1860. Since 1860 our farms have doubled in number,
increased in value from $6,ooo,ooo,ooo to $Io,ooo,ooo,ooo, while
112a PROTECTION AND FREE TRADE.
their product has increased from $1,800,000,000 in 1860 to
$3,ooo,ooo,ooo in 1880.
In 1880 the entire product of Great Britain, farms and all, was
$6,200,000,000, or $172 to an inhabitant. She exported during
that year $1, 300,000,000, leaving consumed at home $136 to an
inhabitant. For the same year the entire product of the United
States was valued at $10,000,000,000, or $200 to an inhabitant.
Of this vast product $9,176,000,000 were consumed at home.
Our home market consumed more than Great Britain’s home
consumption and exportation combined, and more than double
the combined exports of Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia,
Holland and Austria. Beside this amazing consumption of
home products we imported from other countries, in 1887, goods
to the value of $700,000,000, as against $335,000,000 in 1860;
and exported goods to the value of $750,000,000, as against
$373,ooo,ooo in 1860. '
In the light of these stupendous facts the protectionist claimed
that all free trade arguments must appear weak and trivial, and
this especially when they were aimed at a system which, con-
ceding all its incongruities and shortcomings, had become
thoroughly grafted into our business thought and habits, had
for a generation produced a bounteous stream of revenue, ena-
bling us to meet the vast expenditures of civil war, sustain and
improve the public credit, and rapidly reduce a public debt of
enormous proportions without severity or distress, and that had
increased and diversiﬁed our manufactures till they produced
every article of necessity or desire at a gradually reduced cost
to the consumer, at the same time making easy and rapid car-
riage and intercommunication possible by extending the railroad
mileage of 30,600, in 1860, to 137,000, in 1888, or more than
six times the mileage of Great Britain.
‘ .'-v
"u!
r
' rain
‘P ‘(
Niveas"
6; ll .llllllil“
Jaw-F ' '
o- xvq‘. ~,_
. a.“
‘1% a
s :a
‘ 7 \‘ ~
"‘\_.'.~A>\n$_“
“‘ ‘“‘uy .
. .:“l‘\~_.§;


z: “ 'r .v_;-'r.\\<v
\‘Wi I
s a
. g?
kg v “as
u'*\'
,1.‘
‘RS—i.’ '
‘a, “we , W
!' ‘>I
. Mi‘
fé‘
. s. '
fajhii'a‘ V
‘it/.22.... ' a
3 ‘may; 7 J i m.»
7 5! q u a. *fm'ii-I’ﬁ-i
“(Aw #-
‘2,
I >9‘!
at‘; 53!,’ .j, iii
TE}; ¥"‘v' "'1
‘_ ‘ .iiwg’f-EBLY‘E"
: ‘*0
ex.
1.";
E
)r w a. ﬁn» ,,
r 4 - r was‘?
i ‘v . I
“$33.. '
' Era?‘
- 1"." "'
. I ‘ ,
0
who‘ i
13 was“, ' vi a? i l’
1,.‘ amazes if“
h" ' May“ .mw'il/
‘u as “Mi/‘4" ) Ava?“ J‘
v k‘ at‘ A ‘5’.
My‘: %
4 M
is.» -=
,vqlngailh-Qt'»
a“ "
a 55%;’.
4' ‘L’
a’: v iii“
1, ._.6 avg.
Us.‘
1.
I
, v
a, .
MFR-s; 1:!
m7’? ' '
“We
. in =
‘~\ss§§f§§&
,, ,v 1:.
~
0‘
i.
y ,1
.. .W.-‘e’
' 5v???’ j‘ A» r ‘1..
‘a (It;
ll.
t
"r, r
k ‘a
*4,»
If’
:- 14a’
‘ u _ /.'/'
"xv, ,U/
seesaw’ - a. ‘ ‘
f/Va'tisyffa 1'4.‘ '9'. a ' i a l
u a I? if’, u I‘ ‘q o: ‘ . 3 7"“: , .
’rq/t ‘ f’ ,1 ‘ . .-‘}-1 > ' f. - ,~ Isa’, _‘w '3 .
.. 1a,. -.;.' M ’ ~ -' ' i
A >>\ ‘! "/i - i. i I‘ v V
i 1 g M. ‘ -_/,~ “ ' ‘Ill’,
Y ‘:9
.
_ M's
V i ‘ \
_ b
a»
X
Z\
\1.
i.
.‘r/e
a‘
r )- i - f a)’
y’: . ‘4* f
r. at?»
‘r ,1
,
a‘ ‘ y’ . /’/ “fir-pi.-
..
a 'i
\m
A
~
1'4 / ~
.44’ {Ks
‘a
a'_,»_ ‘m.’ J ‘ "
. e
I"; "'4" /
6.01441?’ "'4'
I
.,~i‘\\
I‘.
‘ iii
3, Qt
v .-~, .
_yv‘a‘a"

.t .,.,
uky?
. _;