Jackson’s Administration.
The inaugural address of General Jackson was highly Republican, and, so far as it contained expressions of opinion, was in accordance with the views of his four predecessors. To the position taken by the state of Georgia regarding federal and state authority, the President made no allusion; he promised, however, to take care not to confound the reserved powers of the separate states with those they had granted to the confederacy.
Bank.—The first annual message of the President showed that he questioned the constitutionality and expediency of the National Bank. His aversion to this institution, afterwards, received the sanction of his party.
Removals.—President Jackson, while administering the government, removed 690 men from Federal offices, and filled the vacancies thus made with officials whose political views accorded with those of his own. The General, confident that he could conduct the government better by the aid of his friends than by the assistance of his opponents, often remarked that he was “too old a soldier to leave his garrison in the hands of his enemies.” This prescriptive policy was novel in politics, and was violently contested by the opposition.
Webster–Hayne debate.—In December, 1829, Mr. Foote, of Connecticut, introduced into the Senate a resolution, “inquiring into the expediency of suspending the sales of public lands.” The debate which followed included within its range a variety of topics, among which was that of state rights. On this subject Mr. Hayne, of South Carolina, spoke at great length, and took the position that the Federal government was not superior in authority to an individual state, and that his own state had the right to decide, on its own responsibility, a law of Congress to be unconstitutional. This startling doctrine now received the name of “nullification.” Mr. Hayne declared the intention of South Carolina to interpose her protecting power against the Federal government, whenever the latter should attempt to enforce upon her a law which she deemed unconstitutional. Daniel Webster denied the legality of nullification, and entered into an extended argument favoring the supremacy of the Federal government. The part which he took in the discussion rendered him famous, and won for him the title of “Defender of the Constitution.”
Jackson and Calhoun.—Soon after the inauguration of General Jackson, at which he expressed himself in favor of one term, Mr. Calhoun began to lay plans which would enable him to become the General’s successor. He secured the support of the Telegraph, the administration journal, and obtained the friendship of three cabinet officers. These, with his publications, sentiments, and intentions, produced a rupture between himself and the President, and occasioned a reorganization of the cabinet and the establishment of The Globe, a journal in the interests of the administration. The total renovation of the cabinet was freely denounced by the opposition and the friends of Mr. Calhoun.
The Nullification, or Calhoun party.—In 1831, after the disruption of the cabinet, Mr. Calhoun began the work of forming a party of his own. He canvassed the states of South Carolina and Georgia, endeavored to marshal the slave power against the administration, and proclaimed resistance to the tariff laws. Since nullification was the distinguishing doctrine which he taught, his organization can be called the Nullification party.
Land-proceeds.—In 1832, an attempt was made to pass a law requiring that the proceeds from the sale of public lands be distributed among the states. It was not signed by the executive, but a bill, providing for the distribution of the surplus revenue among the states, originated in the Senate, and became a law. The distribution of the land-proceeds among the states was advocated by the National Republican and the Whig party.
“To the victors belong the spoils,” is a sentiment which originated with Wm. L. Marcy, a New York senator, while arguing, in 1832, for the nomination of Martin Van Buren as minister to England. It was adopted as a maxim into the Democratic party, and has constituted, since its utterance, the code for conducting the civil service of the United States. The National Republicans adopted a resolution condemning it.
Internal improvements were sanctioned by the President in his approval of a bill which appropriated $1,200,000 for the improvement of rivers, harbors, and roads; but he failed to sanction another measure of a similar nature, known as the “harbor bill.” The system was one of the leading issues of the National Republican and Whig parties. It was supported, at first, by a large number of Democrats, but with them it gradually decreased in popularity.
Attempted recharter of the Bank.—A bill for renewing the charter of the National Bank was vetoed by the President in July, 1832.
The tariff of 1832 provided for a diminished rate per cent. on imports, and a considerable reduction of the revenue; but being an indorsement of the protective system, it met with opposition from the free-traders of South Carolina, and did not effect the conciliation expected of it.
Election of 1832.—The Anti-Masonic party held at Philadelphia, September, 1830, the first national political convention that ever assembled in the United States. According to its recommendation, the party met in convention at Baltimore, September, 1831, and nominated William Wirt and Amos Ellmaker as their candidates. The National Republican party held a national convention in the same city, December 12, 1831. Henry Clay and John Sergeant were nominated by a unanimous vote. No platform was adopted till the following May, at a ratification meeting held in Washington, when resolutions were adopted favoring a protective tariff, internal improvements, and opposing the President’s “removals,” his abuse of power, and the doctrine that “to the victors belong the spoils.” The Democratic national convention assembled at Baltimore in May, 1832, re-nominated General Jackson for President, and selected Martin Van Buren for Vice-President. Preceding the vote for the latter, it was resolved “that two-thirds of the whole number of the votes in the convention shall be necessary to constitute a choice.” This was the origin of the famous two-thirds rule. No platform
