Nationalism (Key Concepts in American History)

Key Concepts in American History

Nationalism

Set Contents

Key Concepts in American History Abolitionism Colonialism Expansionism Federalism Industrialism Internationalism Isolationism Nationalism Progressivism Terrorism

Key Concepts in American History

Nationalism

Richard A. Sauers, Ph.D. Jennifer L. Weber, Ph.D. General Editor University of Kansas

Key Concepts in American History: Nationalism Copyright © 2010 by DWJ BOOKS LLC DEVELOPED, DESIGNED, AND PRODUCED BY DWJ BOOKS LLC All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher. For information contact: Chelsea House An imprint of Infobase Publishing 132 West 31st Street New York NY 10001 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Sauers, Richard Allen. â•… Nationalism / Richard A. Sauers ; Jennifer L. Weber, general editor. â•…â•…â•… p. cm. – (Key concepts in American history) â•… Includes bibliographical references and index. â•… ISBN 978-1-60413-219-9 (hardcover) â•… ISBN 978-1-4381-3168-9 (e-book) 1.╇ United States—Politics and government—1809–1817—Encyclopedias, Juvenile.â•… 2.╇ United States—Politics and government—1815–1861—Encyclopedias, Juvenile.╇ 3.╇ Nationalism—United States—History—19th century—Encyclopedias, Juvenile.╇ I.╇ Weber, Jennifer L., 1962–╇ II.╇ Title. â•… E341.S28 2009 â•… 320.540973–dc22 2009025282 Chelsea House books are available at special discounts when purchased in bulk quantities for businesses, associations, institutions, or sales promotions. Please call our Special Sales Department in New York at (212) 967-8800 or (800) 322-8755. You can find Chelsea House on the World Wide Web at http://www.chelseahouse.com Cover printed by Bang Printing, Brainerd, MN Book printed and bound by Bang Printing, Brainerd, MN Date printed: May 2010 Printed in the United States of America 10╇ 9╇ 8╇ 7╇ 6╇ 5╇ 4╇ 3╇ 2╇ 1 This book is printed on acid-free paper. Acknowledgments p. 1: Image copyright © The Metropolitan Museum of Art/Art Resource, NY; pp. 11, 43, 71, 80, 93: The Granger Collection, New York; pp. 21, 27, 90: Art Resource, NY; p. 60: NYPL Digital Library.

Contents List of Illustrations .......................... vi Reader’s Guide to Nationalism ................................. vii Milestones in Nationalism (1788–1869) ................................ viii Preface .............................................. x What Is Nationalism? ....................... 1

Election of 1832.............................. 44 Era of Good Feelings ...................... 45 Federalist Party (1792–1816).......... 47 Indian Removal Act (1830)............. 48 History Speaks: Pushing Indians West ................................ 49 Jackson, Andrew (1767–1845) ....... 51 National Republican Party ............. 52 Nullification Crisis........................... 53 Polk, James K. (1795–1849) ............ 55 Protective Tariffs ............................ 57 Railroads ......................................... 59 Then & Now: Railroads and Time Zones .................................. 62 Secession, Right of ......................... 64 Sectionalism .................................... 65 Slavery ............................................. 70 States’ Rights .................................. 74 Then & Now: Code Words and Equal Rights ......................... 75 Steamboats ..................................... 76 Taylor, Zachary (1784–1850)........... 78 Trail of Tears ................................... 79 Tyler, John (1790–1862) .................. 84 Van Buren, Martin (1782–1862) ................................. 84 Voting and Nationalism ................. 86 War of 1812 .................................... 88 Webster–Ashburton Treaty (1842) ........................................... 91 Webster, Daniel (1782–1852) ......... 92 Whig Party ...................................... 94 Worcester v. Georgia (1832) .......... 96 History Speaks: Defining the Cherokee Nation ......................... 97

Nationalism from A to Z Adams, John Quincy (1767–1848) ................................. 10 Adams–Onís Treaty (1819) ............. 12 American System ............................ 13 Bank of the United States.............. 15 History Makers: Nicholas Biddle (1786–1844)...................... 17 Calhoun, John C. (1782–1850) ....... 18 Canals .............................................. 19 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) ........................................... 23 History Speaks: The Supreme Court and the Cherokee ..................................... 24 Clay, Henry (1777–1852)................. 26 Compromise of 1820 ...................... 27 Compromise of 1850 ...................... 30 History Makers: Millard Fillmore (1800–1874)................... 32 Democratic Party ............................ 32 Democratic–Republican Party........ 35 Election of 1820.............................. 37 History Makers: James Monroe (1758–1831) ................... 38 Election of 1824.............................. 38 Election of 1828.............................. 41

v

vi

✪

Nationalism

Viewpoints About Nationalism War Message to Congress, James Madison, 1812 .................. 98 The British Burn the Nation’s Capital, George Gleig, 1814 ..... 100 Two Views on the Missouri Compromise, 1820 .................... 101 Speech Denouncing the Nullifiers, President Andrew Jackson, 1832............................. 102 American Railroad, Charles Dickens, 1842............................. 103

Gang Labor on a Kentucky Plantation, 1857 ........................ 105 Life on a Mississippi Steamboat, Mark Twain, 1883...................... 106 The Trail of Tears, By a Survivor, ca. 1838 ...................................... 108 Glossary of Key Terms ................. 109 Bibliography ................................. 113 Index ............................................. 116

List of Illustrations Photos Early Steamboats on the Mississippi River............................. 1 John Quincy Adams........................ 11 Building of the Erie Canal.............. 21 Henry Clay....................................... 27 Jackson on His Way to His Inauguration ............................... 43 1840s Railroad ................................ 60

Enslaved Workers in the Field ....... 71 Trail of Tears ................................... 80 The British Burning the White House ........................................... 90 Daniel Webster ............................... 93

Maps Election of 1824.............................. 40 Trail of Tears ................................... 82

Reader’s Guide to Nationalism The list that follows is provided as an aid to readers in locating articles on the big topics or themes in American history. The Reader’s Guide arranges all of the A to Z entries in Key Concepts in American History: Nationalism according to these 6 key concepts of the social studies Economics, Trade, and Transportation Bank of the United States Canals Nullification Crisis Protective Tariffs Railroads Secession, Right of Sectionalism States’ Rights Steamboats War of 1812

Government and Law Adams–Onís Treaty (1819) Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) Compromise of 1820 Compromise of 1850 Era of Good Feelings Indian Removal Act (1830) Nullification Crisis Protective Tariffs Secession, Right of States’ Rights Voting and Nationalism Webster–Ashburton Treaty (1842) Worcester v. Georgia (1832)

curriculum: Economics, Trade, and Transportation; Government and Law; International Relations; People and Society; Policies and Programs; and Political Parties and Elections. Some articles appear in more than one category, helping readers see the links between topics.

International Relations Adams–Onís Treaty (1819) Secession, Right of War of 1812 Webster–Ashburton Treaty (1842)

People and Society Adams, John Quincy (1767–1848) Biddle, Nicholas (See Bank of the United States) Calhoun, John C. (1782–1850) Clay, Henry (1777–1851) Fillmore, Millard (See Compromise of 1850) Indian Removal Act (1830) Jackson, Andrew (1767–1845) Monroe, James (See Election of 1820) Polk, James K. (1795–1849) Secession, Right of Sectionalism Slavery States’ Rights Taylor, Zachary (1784–1850) Time Zones (See Railroads) Trail of Tears Tyler, John (1790–1862)

vii

Van Buren, Martin (1782–1862) Voting and Nationalism Webster, Daniel (1782–1852)

Policies and Programs American System Indian Removal Act (1830) Protective Tariffs States’ Rights Voting and Nationalism

Political Parties and Elections Democratic Party Democratic–Republican Party Election of 1820 Election of 1824 Election of 1828 Election of 1832 Era of Good Feelings Federalist Party (1792–1816) National Republican Party Secession, Right of Sectionalism States’ Rights Voting and Nationalism Whig Party

Although the writers of the U.S. Constitution created a central, or national, government, most Americans still felt a strong loyalty to their home state or region. Slowly, through the early 1800s, the nation expanded westward. At the same time, voting rights expanded, and more people began to participate in the nation’s democratic form of government. In spite of regional differences, especially over the issue of slavery, common interests and better means of transportation worked to strengthen the country. Although the slavery issue further split the nation during the Civil War (1861–1865), the country did not dissolve.

1788 U.S. Constitution ratified. 1789 George Washington is inaugurated as the first president. 1803 United States purchases the Louisiana Territory from France. 1807 First successful steamboat sails up the Hudson River. 1812 War of 1812 begins. 1814 Treaty of Ghent ends the War of 1812. 1815 Battle of New Orleans makes Andrew Jackson a national hero. 1817 James Monroe inaugurated as president; Era of Good Feelings begins. 1819 Adams–Onís Treaty with Spain. 1820 Missouri Compromise allows Missouri to enter the Union as a slave state and Maine to enter as a free state. 1824 John Quincy Adams is elected president by the House of Representatives; Gibbons v. Ogden finds steamboat monopolies unconstitutional. 1825 Erie Canal opens, connecting Buffalo and Albany, New York.

viii

1828 Andrew Jackson president.

is

elected

1830 Indian Removal Act becomes law; Baltimore and Ohio Railroad begins service. 1831 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia determines status of Native American tribes as “domestic dependent nations.” 1832 South Carolina nullifies tariff law; President Jackson threatens to use force to ensure compliance with the law; Jackson vetoes bank bill that would renew the Bank of the United States. 1836 Martin Van Buren is elected president; Charter of the Second Bank of the United States expires. 1837 Trail of Tears begins. 1840 William Henry Harrison is elected president. 1841 President Harrison dies; John Tyler becomes first vice president to assume office on the death of his predecessor. 1845 Texas is annexed by the United States.

Nationalism (1788–1869) and Nebraska Territories open to slavery; Republican Party founded, partly in response to Kansas-Nebraska Act.

1846 Mexican–American War begins. 1848 Mexican–American War ends; Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo gives vast Western lands to the United States.

1857 Dred Scott decision determines that blacks are not U.S. citizens.

1849 Zachary Taylor inaugurated as president.

1860 Abraham Lincoln is elected president; South Carolina secedes from the Union.

1850 President Taylor dies; Millard Fillmore becomes president; Compromise of 1850 allows California to enter the Union as a free state and opens New Mexico and Utah territories to slavery; South Carolina statesman and states’ rights advocate John C. Calhoun dies.

1861 Civil War begins. 1863 Lincoln issues Proclamation.

Emancipation

1865 Civil War ends; Lincoln assassinated; Thirteenth Amendment abolishes slavery.

1852 Henry Clay, the “Great Compromiser,” dies.

1869 Transcontinental Railroad completed at Promontory Point, Utah, further uniting the nation.

1854 Kansas–Nebraska Act overturns Missouri Compromise; Kansas

ix

Preface

T

he United States was founded on ideas. Those who wrote the U.S. Constitution were influenced by ideas that began in Europe: reason over religion, human rights over the rights of kings, and self-governance over tyranny. Ideas, and the arguments over them, have continued to shape the nation. Of all the ideas that influenced the nation’s founding and its growth, 10 are perhaps the most important and are singled out here in an original series—KEY CONCEPTS IN AMERICAN HISTORY. The volumes bring these concepts to life, Abolitionism, Colonialism, Expansionism, Federalism, Industrialism, Internationalism, Isolationism, Nationalism, Progressivism, and Terrorism. These books examine the big ideas, major events, and influential individuals that have helped define American history. Each book features three sections. The first is an overview of the concept, its historical context, the debates over the concept, and how it changed the history and growth of the United States. The second is an encyclopedic, A-to-Z treatment of the people, events, issues, and organizations that help to define the “-ism” under review. Here, readers will find detailed facts and vivid histories, along with referrals to other books for more details about the topic. Interspersed throughout the entries are many high-interest features: “History Speaks” provides excerpts of documents, speeches, and letters from some of the most influential figures in American history. “History Makers” provides brief biographies of key people who dramatically influenced the country. “Then and Now” helps readers connect issues of the nation’s past with present-day concerns. In the third part of each volume, “Viewpoints,” readers will find longer primary documents illustrating ideas that reflect a certain point of view of the time. Also included are important government documents and key Supreme Court decisions. The KEY CONCEPTS series also features “Milestones in. . . ,” time lines that will enable readers to quickly sort out how one event led to another, a glossary, and a bibliography for further reading. People make decisions that determine history, and Americans have generated and refined the ideas that have determined U.S. history. With an understanding of the most important concepts that have shaped our past, readers can gain a better idea of what has shaped our present. Jennifer L. Weber, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of History, University of Kansas General Editor x

What Is

Nationalism?

N

ationalism is defined as a love of one’s country, and it shows itself in everyday life. Most citizens of a country feel a sense of nationalism about their homeland. For example, cheering on the U.S. team at the Olympics is an expression of American nationalism. When Canadians stand at a baseball game while a celebrity sings “O, Canada,” the Canadian national anthem, they are demonstrating a sense of nationalism. Britons cheering for the Queen during a parade are expressing feelings of nationalism, as are Mexican citizens when cheering for their soccer team. DEFINITIONS Nationalism is a relatively “new” concept—one that only developed in the modern world. In order to fully understand what nationalism is, consider the definitions of nationalism, nation, and state. 1. Nationalism is an intense devotion to one’s nation. 2. A nation is a group of people who are united by residence in a common land, a common heritage or culture, a common interest in living together for the present and in the future, and a common desire to have their own state. 3. A state is a political organization that claims or exerts a control over a specific

Steamboats revolutionized water transportation in the United States by delivering goods and passengers over long distances much more quickly than any type of land transportation of the time. This united the regions of the country, thereby contributing to the growing sense of nationalism in the young nation.

1

2

✪

Nationalism

territory and a certain amount of power over its inhabitants. Political states have existed since ancient times. Examples of political states include the Roman Empire, the Persian Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, France, Germany, China, Bangladesh, Canada, and the United States. Simply put, every country in today’s world can also be considered a state. Each country has a border, or claims a border; governs its inhabitants and resources; and uses some type of political ideology to function, whether it be communism, democracy, or socialism. A nation is a more complex idea to consider. A nation is often not a state, and a state is often not a nation. Examples of modern nations are Israel, Poland, Japan, France, and Belgium. There are also some peoples who are known as stateless nations, such as the Kurds, Palestinians, and Basques. Jewish people did not have a nation until the state of Israel was formed in 1948. The United States is a complex example of the growth of a people into nationhood. The British colonies in North America, for example, did not share the qualities expressed in the second definition above. Indeed, the thirteen colonies were by no means united in their desire to become independent from Great Britain. Perhaps one–third of the residents in the thirteen colonies were rebels. Another third were loyalists, while the rest of the population remained neutral. REVOLUTIONARY AMERICA The various people of the thirteen colonies were not a uniform group that would easily band together to form a nation. Many colonists belonged to religious groups that were persecuted in Europe. These people came to America to find religious freedom. Quakers in Pennsylvania, Puritans in New England, and Catholics in Maryland all came to the colonies to worship as they pleased. There were Swedish settlers in the lower Delaware River valley near present–day Philadelphia, Dutch settlers in New Amsterdam (renamed New York after the British took over), and also a number of African-

Nationalism

American slaves who were considered property rather than people. Thus, the American Revolution (1775–1783) waged against Great Britain was based on the ideology of freedom from taxation without representation as well as similar complaints against the British king. When the war was over, the colonies were an independent group of “states” without much of a similar background. In other words, the colonists did not share what was necessary to develop into a unified nation. A NEW COUNTRY The people who eventually made up the new United States of America had to create a common heritage and culture to succeed as an independent state. Symbols had to be invented so people could identify easily with their new country. These symbols included the new flag; the office of the president; a bicameral, or two–part, Congress; documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; and heroes such as George Washington and John Paul Jones. Many early Americans, especially religious leaders, believed that the United States was a unique country that was carrying out God’s destiny by being a beacon of light to the rest of the world. This idea of a religious mission appears throughout American historical writing going back to the colonial era. TRANSPORTATION AND NATIONALISM A sense of nationalism does not develop overnight, or even in a few short years. In takes time to instill nationalistic pride in a country’s people, especially in people as diverse as those who made up the young United States. In a new country located in what amounted to a wilderness, nationalism was slow in developing— partly because of the lack of a national transportation system that would facilitate movement among people. The new nation contained few good roads; most roads were merely dirt tracks. People walked, rode a horse, or rode in horse–drawn wagons and carts from place to place. Water transportation centered on either sail power in deep water or by

✪ 3

4

✪

Nationalism

manpower with rafts, canoes, and similar small wooden vessels in shallow water. This primitive transportation network meant that travel was slow. The completion of the Erie Canal in 1825 sparked a canal–building craze in the United States that lasted into the 1850s, by which time railroads were beginning to make their economic impact. Steam–powered boats were introduced to America in 1807. By the late 1840s, steamships carried passengers and cargo on the Mississippi River and other large rivers in the country and were beginning to cross the Atlantic Ocean. An improved transportation system helped link the country and its people and was a source of nationalistic pride. ECONOMIC NATIONALISM Kentuckian Henry Clay was the early champion of economic nationalism. Calling his monetary plan the “American System,” Clay envisioned a federally funded network of roads and canals, a protective tariff to shield new and growing industries in the United States from foreign competition, and a national bank to supervise the nation’s monetary needs. Clay thought that his system would propel the United States into a self–sufficient, powerful country that would not have to depend on imported goods from foreign countries. Many people thought Clay’s plan would be eagerly adopted, but that was not the case. The new country began with two divergent views on how the nation’s governing document, the Constitution, should be interpreted. One group read the document and interpreted its words strictly. These people argued for a weaker role for the national government and a more active role for state governments. This group grew into a political party called the Democratic–Republicans and included such men as Thomas Jefferson (1801–1809). The opposing view, held by Clay and his followers, led to the creation of the Whig Party. Whigs argued for a strong central government that would take the lead in developing the country. Jefferson and his supporters believed that agriculture was the future of the country, while the Whigs thought that the

Nationalism

United States should develop an industrial base. Throughout the years leading to the Civil War (1861–1865), these opposing groups argued back and forth over which path was correct. POLITICS AND NATIONALISM The sluggish progress of expanding voting rights in the new country also slowed the early growth of nationalism. The country’s founders did not think common people were intelligent enough to vote directly for president, so they designed the Electoral College to select the president. As more states shed their old ways of restricting voting in favor of a more democratic approach, people took a more active interest in politics, and during the age of President Andrew Jackson (1829–1837), a truly national democratic movement took place. A two–party political system formed during the later 1820s and is still active today, although only the present–day Democratic Party has survived since that era. Beginning with the 1828 presidential election, voter participation remained above 55 percent until 1920, when it began to decline. The evolution of mass media—in particular, newspapers—also helped fuel voter interest in national, state, and local elections. The number of newspapers grew rapidly. By the 1850s, most large population centers had at least two newspapers, each devoted to a political party and acting as the unofficial mouthpiece for that party. FIGHTING THE ENEMY At the conclusion of the American Revolution in 1783, the United States was a weak country, with a small army and navy. Almost immediately, the young nation had to use part of its navy to fight a series of battles with pirates along the coast of North Africa who were preying on foreign ships passing through the Mediterranean Sea. Shortly after the U.S. defeated the pirates, French ships began stopping American vessels during the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, trying to prevent American ships from trading with the British. The British Royal Navy also interfered with American shipping,

✪ 5

6

✪

Nationalism

taking sailors off American ships by force and occasionally firing upon American merchant ships. An undeclared naval war developed between the young United States and France and Great Britain. At the same time, in the Western territories of the United States, hostile Native American tribes were given British weapons from Canada, which were then used against settlers pushing into the Northwest Territory—the present–day states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota. As a result of the rising tension between the United States and Great Britain, war broke out. This conflict, the War of 1812 (1812–1814), has been described by many historians as a Second American Revolution. In spite of a strong British navy and poor American army commanders, the United States fought well during this war. New national heroes emerged, including Winfield Scott and Andrew Jackson. The frigate USS Constitution (“Old Ironsides”) became a national legend because of its successful naval actions against British warships. The American people emerged from the War of 1812 with a strong sense of nationalism and destiny. TERRITORIAL EXPANSION A steady increase in U.S. territory took place during the first half of the nineteenth century. Thomas Jefferson, in spite of being a strict constructionist, readily accepted the French offer to sell the Louisiana Territory to the United States in 1803, effectively doubling the size of the country. In 1819, Spain ceded Florida to the United States and established a western boundary of the Louisiana Territory. Other treaties established the northern boundary of Maine and the boundary line between Canada and the United States west of the Great Lakes. U.S. settlers crossed into Texas, then a province of Mexico, in the 1820s. Angry at what they considered oppression by the Mexican government, the settlers revolted in the 1830s and established the Republic of Texas. The United States officially annexed Texas in 1845, an act that eventually led to

Nationalism

war with Mexico in 1846. The Mexican–American War (1846–1848) resulted in a victory for the United States, which acquired more than 500,000 square miles (129,499,405 sq hectares) of land in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the war. This land included the future states of California, Nevada, Utah, and part of New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Wyoming. NATIVE AMERICANS A serious issue arose during this post–1812 period of expansion and the stabilization of the country’s borders. There was growing friction between white settlers and the Native American tribes who resided within the borders of the United States. Ever since the arrival of European colonists in the 1600s, Native American tribes had often fought against the steady encroachment of white settlers onto their ancestral lands. Overpowered by an increasing white population and better technology, the native tribes were pushed farther and farther westward. Even those tribes who had sided with the United States during the American Revolution lost their lands to white settlement. The major problems during the 1820s and 1830s were with the “Five Civilized Tribes,” a group that occupied land in the southern part of the country. Many people and families in these tribes had settled down, started farming or engaging in various businesses, and become much like their white neighbors. State governments, however, wanted Native American land for whites, especially after gold was discovered in Cherokee Territory in Georgia. In spite of a Supreme Court decision in their favor, the tribes were forcibly evicted by President Andrew Jackson and his successors and sent to live west of the Mississippi River. SECTIONALISM AND SLAVERY Even as the United States grew and nationalism began to manifest itself, the issue of slavery always simmered just below the surface as a divisive issue. African-American slave labor was an essential part of the young country’s economy. By the late 1820s, however, Northern states had freed their slaves in

✪ 7

8

✪

Nationalism

favor of a growing industrial and market economy. Agriculture in the North resulted in small farms tended by their owners and a few hired men, while factory owners used immigrant labor. In the South, however, slaves remained a vital part of the local economy. The major crops of the South—cotton, tobacco, and rice—were especially labor intensive. Slavery expanded as the South’s economy pushed westward across the Mississippi River. In 1820, Missouri’s request to be admitted to the Union brought the issue of slavery to the forefront of national debate. In the North, on the other hand, abolitionists called for the end of slavery and fought against its expansion. In spite of political compromises in 1820 and then again in 1850, the country began to split over the slavery issue. Indeed, many historians argue that North and South were developing as two separate countries because their economies, politics, and social systems were so different. The North was more industrial, had a wider variety of people and more immigrants, had more railroads and canals, and had more money. The South was a slave–based agricultural society, in which its white inhabitants held very similar cultural views and religious beliefs. Its cotton crop was becoming more and more valuable as an export to both the growing Northern textile mills and similar mills in England and France. Northern attacks on slavery included moral and religious arguments, which were also used by defenders of the institution. The slavery issue was an extension of what is known as the states’ rights argument. Those people in favor of a weaker federal government argued that the Constitution gave certain rights to states, which were denied to the federal government. The battle over states’ rights was a recurrent argument throughout the first half of the nineteenth century and was only decided by the Civil War. States’ rights supporters went so far as to endorse the doctrine of nullification, or of states rendering a federal law ineffective. Later, they supported the right of secession, or breaking away, from the United States.

Nationalism

The effects of slavery were far–reaching. The issue split churches into Northern and Southern wings, impeded legislation such as the transcontinental railroad, led to violence in the Kansas Territory, and eventually caused a new political party, the Republican Party, to be founded. The issue became even more divisive in the 1850s. Newspapers and magazines created false impressions of the other section of the country, a process that further heightened sectional, or regional, antagonisms. THE CIVIL WAR AND NATIONALISM The 1860 election of a Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, caused the Southern states to leave the Union and form the Confederate States of America, an act that led to four years of bloody Civil War. Ultimately, the war resulted in the death of more than 600,000 Americans. The war ended slavery, neutralized any sectional issues for decades, and ensured the presence of a strong central government. Nationalistic sentiment was heightened during the Civil War and remained so long after the conflict was over. This increased national pride, had a powerful impact on the country’s progress, and helped propel the United States toward rapid development. Even though there had been bursts of nationalism before the war, patriotic fervor grew even stronger throughout the rest of the nineteenth century. The concept of nationalism, of being devoted to one’s country, obviously exists today. The pride and patriotism people feel about their countries helps create strong, unified nations.

FURTHERREADING Carey, Charles W. The Mexican War: Mr. Polk’s War. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow, 2002. Gellner, Ernest. Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2008. McArthur, Debra. The Kansas–Nebraska Act and Bleeding Kansas in American History. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow, 2003.

✪ 9

Nationalism from A–Z

A–B in 1803. Adams also broke with the Federalists when he argued in favor of establishing a permanent border with Canada; his party wanted to cede territory to Canada to ease tensions and gain a quick settlement. Adams’s support of territorial acquisition showed his growing sense of nationalism. Having studied and traveled widely in Europe, he was very much aware of the vast potential for the growth of the United States. Although he continued to advocate territorial expansion throughout his career, Adams was in favor of planned, negotiated acquisition rather than warfare. President James Madison (1809– 1817) appointed Adams minister to Russia, where he served from 1809 until 1814. Adams then served as one of the negotiators of the Treaty of Ghent, which formally ended the War of 1812 (1812–1814). Adams also served as minister to England between 1815 and 1817, where he concluded a commercial treaty and initiated talks on demilitarizing the Great Lakes. Adams came home in 1817 to become President James Monroe’s (1817–1825) secretary of state. His successes in this role included establishing the final border with Canada

Adams, John Quincy (1767–1848) Son of the nation’s second president, John Adams (1797–1801), and the sixth U.S. president (1825–1829). John Quincy was a leading nationalist during his long political career. Throughout his public life, Adams worked to unify the nation through a system of internal improvements such as canals and roads. He sought to establish a national university and a planetary observatory. He also opposed the spread of slavery and worked for the rights of African Americans. EARLY CAREER President George Washington (1789– 1797) appointed John Quincy Adams minister to the Netherlands, where he served from 1794 to 1797. John Adams, who was elected president in 1796, appointed his son minister to Prussia, a post John Quincy held until 1801. Adams returned to the United States and was elected by the Federalist Party as one of the senators from Massachusetts. Adams possessed an independent nature and was the only member of his party to support President Thomas Jefferson’s (1801–1809) acquisition of the Louisiana Territory 10

Adams, John Quincy (1767–1848)

from Minnesota to the Rockies, negotiating a treaty with Spain that transferred Florida to the United States and set the border with Spanish Mexico, and obtaining fishing rights off the Canadian coast. Perhaps most importantly, he persuaded the president to issue the Monroe Doctrine in 1823.

✪ 11

bered for his continued opposition of the antislavery gag rule, which prevented House members from discussing issues related to slavery. Adams successfully worked to have the gag rule repealed, which the House did in 1844. A firm opponent of slavery, Adams served as a defense lawyer for the African slaves who had mutinied and seized the slave ship Amistad in 1839. His eloquent arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court resulted in the freeing of the Africans.

PRESIDENCY Adams decided to run for president, and although he garnered only 32 percent of the popular vote, he emerged as the winner of the disputed election of 1824. Because of his lofty ideals, his alienation of potential supporters, and the lingering bitterness of the election, Adams did not accomplish his goals as president. He advocated an aggressive program of internal improvements designed to provide the country with a better transportation system, a national university, and a national observatory, all of which proved too ambitious for a Congress opposed to those ideas. After his four years in office ended in 1829, Adams retired to his home in Massachusetts. In 1831, however, he was elected to the House of Representatives, where he served for 17 years until his death in 1848. He supported a national bank, opposed the annexation of Texas, and After leaving office in 1829, Adams returned to the House of Representatives and worked to end the gag voted against the war with rule that had prevented discussion about the slavery Mexico. He is best remem- question.

A– B

12

✪

Adams, John Quincy (1767–1848)

See also: Adams–Onís Treaty (1819); Election of 1824.

FURTHERREADING Doutrich, Paul E. Shapers of the Great Debate on Jacksonian Democracy. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2004. Levy, Debbie. John Quincy Adams. Minneapolis, Minn.: Lerner, 2004.

Adams–Onís Treaty (1819) Treaty with Spain which gave Florida to the United States and clarified the western boundary of the Louisiana Purchase. By acquiring the state of Florida, the United States gained national security for its southern boundary. The rise of nationalism after the War of 1812 (1812–1814) soon involved Spanish Florida in the expansion plans of some U.S. leaders. At the time of the Louisiana Purchase from France in 1803, the western boundary of Florida extended across present–day Alabama and Mississippi to the east bank of the Mississippi River. President Thomas Jefferson’s (1801– 1809) original idea was to purchase New Orleans and West Florida from Spain to ensure that the western states could safely use the Mississippi River for trade. However, in a secret treaty, Spain had transferred New Orleans and the vast Louisiana Territory to France. In 1803, Jefferson readily agreed to purchase all of Louisiana from France, confident that Spanish Florida would eventually become American property. The Spanish monarchy resisted U.S. attempts to purchase West Florida. Instead, West Florida came under

U.S. control bit by bit without bloodshed. U.S. troops occupied Mobile during the War of 1812, and, although Spain protested, the Spanish government had no force to recapture the territory. NEW TENSIONS After President James Madison’s (1809–1817) secret operation to encourage a revolution in East Florida failed, conditions along the Georgia–Florida border continued to worsen. Runaway slaves fled south into Spanish territory. In addition, Seminole Indians living in the territory used it as a base to raid U.S. land. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams was determined to negotiate the transfer of Florida to the United States, a process that was threatened by fighting in Latin America, where Spain’s colonies were declaring their independence. General Andrew Jackson, with the implied support of President James Monroe (1817–1825), invaded northern Florida to put an end to the raids. He attacked in March 1818, seized a Spanish fort at Saint Marks, defeated the Seminole, and occupied the port of Pensacola. Jackson also captured two British citizens— Alexander Arbuthnot and Robert Armbrister—whom he accused of aiding the Seminole. After a military trial, both men were executed. This action caused Great Britain to protest and almost led to war. Jackson, however, provided proof that the two men were indeed providing covert aid to the Indians, and Britain dropped its protest.

American System

NEGOTIATIONS At this time, Spain’s foreign minister, Luis de Onís, began negotiations with Adams to resolve the Florida issue. The resulting Adams–Onís Treaty was an important document in United States history. In this treaty, the U.S. acquired Florida in exchange for dropping its claim to the Mexican province of Texas and agreeing to pay $5 million to American citizens who claimed damages against Spain because of the raids on U.S. territory. Negotiators also set the western boundary of the Louisiana Territory between Spanish Mexico and the United States. The boundary followed the Sabine, Red, and Arkansas rivers north to the 42nd parallel—an invisible line moving from east to west across the globe—and then along this line straight west to the Pacific Ocean. The treaty was signed on February 22, 1819, but it was not ratified by Spain until 1821. Secretary Adams called the signing of the treaty “the most important day of my life.” See also: Adams, John Quincy.

FURTHERREADING Feinstein, Stephen. John Quincy Adams. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow Publishers, 2002. Howe, Daniel W. What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815– 1848. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

African Americans See: Slavery.

✪ 13

American System Plan for making the United States self–sufficient and economically sound that was championed by Kentuckian Henry Clay during the period from the later 1810s to Clay’s death in 1852. Clay envisioned that his idea would result in the growth of the United States into a world economic power. However, the divisive issue of slavery, among other differences between North and South, doomed any chance that his system would be enacted into law. ENVISIONING THE PLAN Clay was one of the delegates who traveled to Ghent, Belgium, to negotiate the end of the War of 1812 (1812– 1814). He came back home convinced that the United States could become a great world power. Its people were industrious, and the population was growing. The nation had within its borders abundant natural resources, good farming land, a democratic government, and the will to expand. It was only natural that the government should initiate and facilitate the process by which the United States would rise to greatness. To accomplish this grand idea, Clay believed, the Constitution’s interpretation should continue to evolve to fit the expanding nation. The government would have to assume powers not specifically granted by the Constitution. By doing so, the government would look after the welfare of the entire country and prevent sections from fighting with each other over how to grow the economy.

A– B

14

✪

American System

Clay’s ideas came together into what he called the American System, a plan for making the U.S. self– sufficient and economically sound. His plan incorporated a national bank, protective tariffs to aid commercial interests, federal funds for internal improvements, and an unstated belief in territorial expansion. Throughout his long political career, Clay continued to fight for his system, with mixed results. ATTEMPTING TO ENACT THE PLAN Clay enthusiastically supported the Second Bank of the United States (1816–1836). When President Andrew Jackson (1829–1837) launched an attack on the bank, Clay fought back, but unsuccessfully. He tried to have Jackson censured for Jackson’s decision to remove federal funds from the bank. Rather than compromise, which was one of his strengths, Clay’s emotions overrode his common sense, and his stand to keep the bank failed. Tariffs The idea of a protective tariff proved to be one of the most divisive issues in pre–Civil War politics. The South objected to the tariff because it grew crops such as cotton and tobacco but needed to purchase finished products from either elsewhere in the United States or from abroad. A tariff would make prices higher and result in Southern planters losing more of their income. Planters argued that a tariff was just another tax they would have to pay and that the tariff favored the Northern industrialists. They did not realize that because of soil conditions and a shorter grow-

ing season, the Northern states could not survive on just agriculture; industrialization was a necessity. Opponents of the protective tariff also invoked the name of economist Adam Smith, whose book, The Wealth of Nations, argued against forcing economic growth into a pattern, as the tariff would by fostering the development of U.S. industries. Smith contended that capital and labor should be free to take whatever direction the natural orders of things allowed—in other words, he supported free and unhindered trade. Send American raw materials (cotton, for example) to Britain and buy finished products in return, the South argued. Clay countered that a protective tariff would be good for North, South, and West by attaining national self– sufficiency with a balanced economy. Each section would complement the others, with all three sections growing and prospering equally. However, in reality, the tariff was perhaps the most hotly debated issue in Congress at the time. Internal Improvements The use of federal funds to help states with internal improvements was another essential feature of the American System. Clay argued that it was absolutely essential to tie the nation together with a national system of roads and canals to ease the flow of products and people around the country. Strict interpreters of the Constitution again said that the government did not have the power to do so. In turn, Clay argued that the Constitution gave the government the

Bank of the United States

power to deliver mail through the post office, which implied that the government had the power to build roads by which mail carriers could deliver mail. The Constitution also allowed government to “provide for the common defense.” Here again, Clay argued that it was vitally important for military defense to have good roads and canals over which to move soldiers and equipment. Because the Constitution also gave the federal government the power to regulate trade, Clay contended that that clause meant the government could build roads and canals to facilitate commerce. Land and Improvements To avoid sectional fighting on internal improvements, Clay came up with the idea of linking such improvements with the sale of government–owned land. Clay argued that the billions of acres of public land amounted to a huge national resource that should not be given away at low prices, which is what most Western congressmen argued in favor of doing. Missouri senator Thomas Hart Benton argued long and loud for such a gradual reduction in land prices. He became one of Clay’s strongest opponents over the land issue. Rather than reduce the price per acre and fritter away this national resource, Clay recommended that the proceeds from land sales be distributed to each state on the basis of its population. Seven newer states would receive more of these funds to help them catch up to the older states. Money received from distribution would be used to fund education and

✪ 15

internal improvements. Clay’s distribution bill passed Congress in 1833, but Jackson pocket-vetoed it. Later Successes Clay was never able to realize the full potential of his American System. During the years he spent trying to implement this system, he struggled against the mainstream Democratic belief that government should be limited. The rising slavery issue also contributed to sectionalism that interfered with any political alliance that could have helped push Clay’s system through Congress. Clay never lived to see the American System become a reality. However, a decade after Clay’s death, the new Republican Party enacted much of the system during the Civil War (1861– 1865). Republican president Abraham Lincoln (1861–1865), a former Whig, endorsed federal aid to railroads, a higher tariff, and a national bank. See also: Clay, Henry; Jackson, Andrew; Nullification Crisis; Polk, James K.; Protective Tariffs; Sectionalism.

FURTHERREADING Baxter, Maurice G. Henry Clay and the American System. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1995. Watson, Harry L. Andrew Jackson vs. Henry Clay: Democracy and Development in Antebellum America. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1998.

Bank of the United States Name of a private corporation created by the U.S. Congress to manage the nation’s monetary affairs. Two versions of this bank were in existence from 1791 to 1836. George

A– B

16

✪

Bank of the United States

Washington (1789–1797) the nation’s first president, appointed New Yorker Alexander Hamilton the nation’s first secretary of the Treasury. TWO VIEWS Hamilton believed in a strong national government. His financial plan for making the United States a stronger country included paying off all debts created by both the Continental Congress and by the state governments during the Revolutionary War (1775–1783). Hamilton also wanted to establish a national bank to oversee the nation’s money supply and prevent both inflation and economic downturns, which were then called “panics.” Washington was unsure about Hamilton’s bank idea, so he asked his Treasury secretary to put his thoughts into writing. The president also sought advice from Thomas Jefferson, his secretary of state, who opposed a strong central government. Both men gave Washington an essay based on the same clause in the Constitution: Article I, Section 8. This clause gave Congress the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper” to ensure that its programs and policies would be carried out. Hamilton interpreted the Constitution loosely. A national bank was naturally related to the government’s power to collect taxes and regulate trade. According to Hamilton, the Constitution gave Congress “implied powers.” Jefferson argued that Congress could only pass laws that were necessary, not convenient. Because the government could function without a bank, a national bank

was unnecessary and, consequently, unconstitutional. Jefferson thus interpreted the Constitution very strictly. SETTING UP THE BANK In 1791, Congress chartered a privately owned national bank for 20 years. Washington agreed with Hamilton and signed the bank bill into law in 1791. The federal Treasury provided 20 percent of the bank’s initial capital of $10 million. Private investors purchased the remaining 80 percent of the bank’s stock. This First Bank of the United States was authorized to print paper banknotes that were loaned to business leaders who would provide security in return. With the bank’s money, a business owner could expand, make a profit, and repay the loan within a specified amount of time. By controlling the amount of banknotes printed, the directors of the First Bank maintained a loose control over state-chartered banks, which often printed too much paper money and made bad loans. Often, state banks did not retain enough without the required amount of hard currency—gold and silver—to back up their loans. Congress allowed the First Bank’s charter to expire in 1811. Difficulties financing the War of 1812 influenced Congress to charter the Second Bank of the United States in 1816, again for 20 years. In 1819, the Second Bank became involved in a deepening economic depression. Called the Panic of 1819, it was brought on by the misguided loan policies of state banks in the Midwest. Fueled by the westward movement of settlers and the grow-

Bank of the United States

✪ 17

Nicholas Biddle (1786–1844) A college graduate at age 15, Nicholas Biddle is best remembered today for his presidency of the Second Bank of the United States (1823–1839). Biddle was a Philadelphia native. After spending four years in Europe as the secretary to the U.S. minister to France, Biddle returned to the United States and became a lawyer. He was given the task of writing the history of the Lewis and Clark Expedition upon William Clark’s request, though he had to give up this project after being elected to the Pennsylvania state legislature in 1810. Biddle was elected to the governing board of the Second Bank in 1819 and then was elected board president in January 1823. He set about establishing much better policies than the ones in use. By 1830, the Second Bank dominated the U.S. financial scene by limiting the amount of paper

ing desire to buy more land, many banks speculated on this land craze and loaned out far more money than they actually had in their vaults. As the economy began to become unsound, the Second Bank’s directors forced these “wildcat” banks to recall their loans so they would still be able to do business. In the process, thousands of Americans had their properties foreclosed and lost everything they had. Democrat Andrew Jackson (1829–1837) was the victor in the 1828 presidential election. Jackson

money in circulation and in effect curtailing the loosely controlled state banks. Biddle put his own position and that of the bank in jeopardy by deciding to ally with Kentucky senator Henry Clay in 1832 to renew the bank’s charter four years before it expired. Congress easily passed the bill. However, President Andrew Jackson (1829– 1837) vetoed the bill, and there were not enough votes in Congress to override the veto. After the Second Bank’s charter expired in 1836, Biddle reorganized it as a state bank, the Bank of the United States of Pennsylvania. He resigned in 1839 and was later indicted with criminal charges linked to his role with the Second Bank. Although innocent of these charges, Biddle’s reputation was smeared. He retired to his estate near Philadelphia, where he died in 1844.

was a frontiersman, military hero of the War of 1812, and an enemy of the monied Eastern business owners, men whom he accused of prejudice toward the frontier. Jackson, rightly or wrongly, blamed the Second Bank—which he called “the monster”—for much of the country’s financial woes. END OF THE BANK The Second Bank’s charter was scheduled to expire in 1836 unless it was renewed by Congress. In 1832, Kentucky senator Henry Clay, one of

A– B

18

✪

Bank of the United States

Jackson’s main political opponents, decided to make the renewal of the bank’s charter a major theme of the upcoming presidential election. He allied himself with bank president Nicholas Biddle and introduced into Congress a bill to renew the bank’s charter. Congress easily passed the bill, which then when went to the president to either sign or veto. Clay reasoned that if Jackson signed the bill he would alienate his Western supporters; if he vetoed it, Jackson would drive away Easterners who supported the bank. “The Bank . . . is trying to kill me,” said Jackson, “but I will kill it.” Jackson vetoed the bill, and after he crushed Clay in the November 1832 presidential election, he instructed the Treasury Department to begin removing its funds from the bank and placing them in favored state banks. By the time the

bank’s charter expired in 1836, it had become a weak shadow of its former self. The death of the Second Bank was the end of a national bank until President Abraham Lincoln (1861–1865) signed into law the National Bank Act of 1863, which created federally chartered banks, federal bonds, and a national currency. This system was replaced in 1913 by the Federal Reserve System, which was modified in the 1930s and continues to govern the modern banking system. See also: Adams, John Quincy; Election of 1832; Jackson, Andrew.

FURTHERREADING Brookhiser, Richard. Alexander Hamilton, American. New York: Touchstone, 2000. Meltzer, Milton. Andrew Jackson and His America. London: Franklin Watts, 1993.

C Calhoun, John C. (1782–1850) South Carolina politician who began his career as a nationalist but in later years became a sectionalist who strongly defended slavery. Known for his grand speeches and impassioned defense of slavery, John C. Calhoun was one of the most prominent pre–Civil War senators. Calhoun was a nationalist during his years in the House of Representatives (1811–1817). As an advocate of territorial expansion, he eagerly sup-

ported war with England in 1812, accusing the British of aiding Native Americans in the West to limit the nation’s growth. Politically, he was a Jeffersonian Republican, agreeing with the former president that the nation’s success lay in agriculture and that industrialization and expansion were necessary only to support agriculture. Calhoun, an avid states’ rights supporter, believed that government should have a limited ability to interfere with the states. President James Monroe (1817– 1825) chose Calhoun as his secretary

Canals

of war, during which time Calhoun streamlined the army’s supply system and authorized construction of a series of forts along the coasts to protect U.S. cities and other important points from any future enemy attack. Calhoun then served as vice president under John Quincy Adams (1825–1829) and Andrew Jackson (1829–1837) before resigning in 1832 to become a U.S. senator from South Carolina. During Calhoun’s years in the Senate, he turned from a nationalist to a sectionalist, and he became a member of the new Democratic Party. As a sectionalist, Calhoun became one of the most prominent defenders of slavery. He supported the doctrine of nullification, under which a state could void any federal law that interfered with its citizens. However, Calhoun opposed the right of secession, which he considered too extreme of a position, one that would endanger the unity of the nation. As for slavery, Calhoun argued that the Constitution protected this system of human bondage. The Constitution protected a person’s property, which included slaves, and thus, slaveholders could take their property to any state they wished without penalty. Calhoun foresaw the future split between North and South. The Northern states were growing in population and industrializing, threatening the balance of power between North and South in Congress. “It is difficult to see,” he wrote late in life, “how two peoples so different and hostile can exist in one common union.” Shortly

✪ 19

after speaking out against the Compromise of 1850, the senator died of tuberculosis. He was buried in his home state of South Carolina. See also: Compromise of 1850; Democratic Party; Nullification Crisis.

FURTHERREADING Brown, Warren. John C. Calhoun. New York: Chelsea House, 1993. Irving, H. Bartlett. John C. Calhoun: A Biography. New York: W.W. Norton, 1994.

C California See: Compromise of 1850.

Canals Human-made waterways used for the transportation of goods and people. Canals flourished in the United States between 1825 and 1845. They helped facilitate westward migration, lowered the transportation costs of goods, and were a source of pride to the growing nation. Although a few canals had been built in New England during the 1790s, the lack of financial backing, coupled with political indifference, kept canal construction limited. THE ERIE CANAL In the early nineteenth century, settlers found the Appalachian Mountains to be a major obstacle to westward expansion. It was difficult and costly to build roads across the mountains, which were penetrated by few major rivers. One of the primary breaks in the mountains was

20

✪

Canals

located west of Albany, New York. Here, the terrain was relatively flat and could accommodate the building of a canal. New York governor De Witt Clinton managed to gather enough support in the legislature to approve funding for the Erie Canal, which began construction in 1817 and opened completely in 1825. This canal provided a water route from Buffalo (located on Lake Erie) east to Albany (on the Hudson River), and by extension to New York City. The 363–mile–long canal cost $8 million to build but proved its worth almost immediately. Before the canal, a barrel of flour cost $3 to transport from Rochester to Albany; in 1825, it cost only 75 cents. New York City benefited the most from the Erie Canal. The huge increase of goods traveling south on the Hudson River led to New York’s becoming the nation’s largest port. The canal also made immigration into the upper Midwest (the present–day states of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois) much easier, resulting in a steady rise in population in those areas. HOW CANALS WORKED Boats were towed usually by teams of mules, which walked along towpaths that paralleled the canal. On level ground, the speed was generally 2 to 3 miles (3 to 4 km) an hour. Both passenger boats and cargo boats traveled the canals. Traffic jams on the canals were avoided by keeping to schedules and having basins where boats could congregate while waiting for other boats to clear their path. Canals were easier and cheaper to construct

on level ground than on rising terrain. When faced with higher ground, construction crews built sets of locks to move the canal boats along. Locks were simply sets of gates. A canal boat entered a lock, which was a short section of canal with closed gates in front of and in back of the boat. Water was then pumped in to raise the water level. The forward gate was then opened and the canal boat proceeded ahead until the next lock, after which the process was repeated. The same process could be used to bring a boat to a lower level. When builders encountered creeks or rivers that flowed across the canal’s projected path, they built stone aqueducts over such water obstacles to keep the canal moving. PENNSYLVANIA CANALS The instant success of the Erie Canal fueled a “canal craze” in the eastern United States. The major efforts took place north of the Potomac River in the Middle Atlantic states. Following the lead of the Erie Canal, the Pennsylvania legislature began funding the effort to link Philadelphia and Pittsburgh by canal, a distance of 391 miles (629 km). By the time the canal–building era ended in Pennsylvania, more than 1,200 miles (1,931 km) of canals had been constructed. The canals around Philadelphia connected the city to the state’s anthracite coal region of Schuylkill and Carbon counties. The Schuylkill Canal (completed in 1829) linked Port Carbon in Schuylkill County to Philadelphia, while the Lehigh Canal linked Mauch Chunk in Carbon County to the Delaware River. Far-

Canals

ther north, the 25–mile (40–km) Delaware and Hudson began at Honesdale, Pennsylvania, linking that town to the Hudson River at Roundout, New York.

✪ 21

connecting Albemarle Sound via the Pasquotank River with Norfolk on the Chesapeake Bay. WESTERN CANALS As the upper Midwest grew, so, too, did the canals in these new states. The Ohio legislature funded construction of the Ohio and Erie Canal, a 308–mile (496–km) system built between 1825 and 1832, connecting Cleveland and Akron and points farther south. The Miami and Maumee Canal connected Cincinnati and Dayton and fed into the Ohio and Erie Canal as well. Indiana constructed the Wabash and Erie Canal, which

SOUTHERN CANALS South of Pennsylvania, there were fewer canals. The Chesapeake and Ohio, conceived with big expectations, yielded disappointing results. This canal stretched 185 miles (297 km) from the nation’s capital along the Potomac River to Cumberland, Maryland. Plans had been made to extend the canal westward through the mountains, but the high cost of construction to Cumberland, together with the lack of financial return, meant that Cumberland remained the western end. Maryland constructed another canal that proved more successful— the Sus quehanna and Tidewater—connecting to the Pennsylvania system at Wrightsville. In Virginia, the major canal was the James River, which had been started in 1785. However, because of financial concerns and lack of interest, by 1851, it had been finished only as far as Lynchburg, a distance of 196 miles (315 km). The idea was to link Richmond with Charleston in western Virginia. North Carolina built a few small canals, Long after the Erie Canal’s completion, thousands of laborers were kept busy in the messy job of draining the largest of which was the canal, clearing debris, and inspecting the walls the Dismal Swamp Canal, and locks.

C

22

✪

Canals

began at Toledo on Lake Erie and stretched to Evansville. The Illinois and Michigan Canal, built between 1836 and 1848, connected Chicago to the Illinois River, which in turn fed into the Mississippi River. This canal facilitated trade with St. Louis and points as far south as New Orleans. It brought trade to Chicago and aided to the rapid growth of the city, which eventually became the most important transportation hub in the Midwest. END OF THE CANAL CRAZE By the time the canal-building craze died down, more than 4,000 miles (6,437 km) of canals had been constructed. The Erie Canal was the most successful of all of them. In 1881, tolls on the canal were ended after the state finally completed paying back its loans that made the canal possible. Throughout the history of the Erie, it was constantly upgraded to handle heavier canal boats to keep the goods flowing east and west. In 1918, the Erie Canal was improved and enlarged to become the New York State Barge Canal System. Many of the other canals also used work teams to keep the canals in repair, occasionally draining sections of the canal to clean the bottom, repair locks, and keep the walls clean and smooth. Most canals were simply too expensive to maintain. Floods often damaged sections, causing more money to be invested to repair the damage. States that had borrowed money to build canals often were unable to pay back the loans. The Panic of 1837, an economic crisis, resulted

in many defaulted canal loans and ended the economic usefulness of many systems. BENEFITS OF THE CANAL ERA An estimated $188 million was invested in the canal craze period of U.S. history. This was an extraordinary amount of money for a young country to divert toward canals. On the positive side, the canal era lowered transportation costs and enabled an increased flow of goods and services, especially across the Northern states, which built most of the country’s canals. The Erie Canal, and to a lesser extent the Pennsylvania system, facilitated the westward flow of immigrants to the upper Midwestern states. Travel time was drastically decreased by the canal systems, thus strengthening the growing United States. The canal systems also resulted in growth along their routes. At the rate of perhaps 3 miles (4 km) per hour, a typical canal boat might traverse 25 miles (40 km) a day. When stopping for the night, passengers needed hotels or boardinghouses for shelter, while taverns proved a popular place for the tired crew members, who also needed to take care of their valuable mules. Towns along the canal routes sprouted new businesses that catered to the canal traffic. Local laborers were hired to keep the canal in repair and, at off times, to drain the canal and clear the bed of debris. The Erie Canal, for example, at one time had 25,000 men working to keep it in repair. All of this stimulated local economies by providing jobs and helping businesses grow.

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)

See also: American System Railroads.

FURTHERREADING Bourne, Russell. Floating West: The Erie and Other American Canals. New York: W.W. Norton, 1992. Kapsch, Robert J. Canals. New York: W.W. Norton, 2004.

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) Supreme Court case in which the Court defined the relationship of Native American tribes to the U.S. government. Chief Justice John Marshall’s majority opinion tried to define the relationship of Native Americans to the United States and, in turn, to the government of the state in which they resided. Ever since the sighting of the Western Hemisphere by European explorers, there were difficulties in determining the relationship between Native Americans and the European colonists established along the Atlantic seaboard. The Cherokee people in particular had mixed relations with white colonists ever since the 1700s. When Great Britain signed the Treaty of Paris in 1783, ending the Revolutionary War (1775–1783), it gave up all its claims on territory owned by the new United States. At the time, the new government looked on native peoples as just part of conquered territory to be administered by the United States. However, state governments began arguing that Native American land and inhabitants within their boundaries had to be considered a part of each state, to be administered by the individual states.

✪ 23

THE CHEROKEE In 1785, the Cherokee signed the Treaty of Hopewell with representatives of the government. This document specified boundaries of the tribe, stated that all Cherokee were under the protection of the U.S. government, acknowledged that the United States would regulate trade with the Cherokee, and included an article that stripped whites of U.S. protection if they continued to live on Cherokee land after six months. The Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790 gave the federal government the power to negotiate all future treaties with any tribe. In spite of such protections, the steady advancement westward of white settlement led to more treaties in which the Cherokee kept giving up more and more land. As time went on, the Cherokee became more “civilized,” living in log cabins, raising crops, establishing schools, and building roads. The tribe established a written language and in 1827 adopted a constitution based on the U.S. Constitution. However, the states in which the Cherokee resided wanted to take over the native people’s land. When gold was discovered in 1829, more and more trespassers moved into Cherokee land to dig for the metal. This gold rush strained relations between whites and Native Americans. The Georgia legislature began pressing for a solution. According to Georgia, the federal government had not shown good faith in dealing with Native Americans. Any land within the state border belonged to the state,

C

24

✪

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)

The Supreme Court and the Cherokee

I

n this excerpt from the Supreme Court decision, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, Chief Justice John Marshall discussed the relationship of the Cherokee tribe to the U.S. government.

Do the Cherokees constitute a foreign nation in the sense of the constitution? The counsel have shown conclusively, that they are not a state of the Union. . . . Though the Indians are acknowledged to have an unquestionable, and heretofore unquestioned, right to the lands they occupy, until that right shall be extinguished by a voluntary cession to our government; yet it may well be doubted, whether those tribes which reside within the acknowledged boundaries of the United States can, with accuracy, be denominated foreign nations. They may, more correctly, perhaps, be denominated domestic dependent nations. They occupy a territory to which we assert a title independent of their will, which must take effect in point of possession, when their right of possession ceases. Meanwhile, they are in a state of pupilage; their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian.

They look to our government for protection; rely on its kindness and its power; appeal to it for relief and to their wants; and address the president as their great father. . . . . . . [T]he peculiar relationship between the United States and the Indians occupying our territory are such, that we should feel much difficulty in considering them as designated by the term foreign state, were there no other part of the constitution which might shed light on the meaning of these words. But we think that in construing them, considerable aid is furnished by that clause in the eighth section of the third article, which empowers congress to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” In this clause, they are as clearly contradistinguished by a name appropriate to themselves, from foreign nations, as from the several states composing the Union.

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)

with the Cherokee merely tenants. A law passed by the Georgia legislature in December 1829 specified that after June 1, 1830, any laws or regulations passed by the Cherokee would be null and void. THE SUPREME COURT CASE To fight back against Georgia, the Cherokee filed an injunction—a court order prohibiting a party from a specific course of action—against the state with the U.S. Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall, though sympathetic with the plight of the Cherokee, delivered an opinion on March 18, 1831, that examined the status of the Cherokee and by extension all Native American tribes within the United States. He briefly reviewed the ongoing loss of Native American land through treaty after treaty. He asked the question, “Is the Cherokee nation a foreign state, in the sense in which that term is used in the constitution?” Marshall answered his own question when he concluded that “The acts of our government plainly recognize the Cherokee nation as a state, and the courts are bound by those acts.” However, warned Marshall, “Do the Cherokees constitute a foreign state in the sense of the constitution?” In selecting an answer to this question, Marshall examined the relationship between the United States and Native American tribes living within its boundaries. He wrote that the relationship involved “peculiar and cardinal distinctions which exist nowhere else.” Native Americans themselves had admitted through their treaties that they were under the protection

✪ 25

of the United States. They owned the land they lived on unless they sold it to the United States. Marshall coined the phrase “domestic dependent nations” to describe the relationship between Native Americans and the federal government. In other words, Native Americans were wards of the United States. The tribes depended on the United States for protection as well as other assistance. Any foreign nation that attempted to form a political connection with or invade a Native American tribe, would, in effect, be showing hostility toward the United States. Marshall rejected the tribe’s petition for a restraining order against Georgia because the Cherokee had filed suit as a foreign nation rather than as American citizens. The Supreme Court voted 4–2 with Marshall. The two dissenting justices both thought that the Cherokee functioned as a foreign state. However, two of the justices who sided with Marshall went on to state that the Cherokee did not have any political or property rights in Georgia. Marshall held out a ray of hope to the Cherokee when he concluded that “On several of the matters alleged in the bill, for example, on the laws making it criminal to exercise the usual powers of self–government in their own country, by the Cherokee nation, this court cannot interpose; at least, in the form in which those matters are presented.” See also: Worcester v. Georgia (1832); Indian Removal Act (1830); Trail of Tears.

C

26

✪

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)

FURTHERREADING Conley, Robert J. The Cherokee Nation: A History. Portland, Ore.: Graphic Arts Center Publishing Company, 2008. Elish, Dan. The Trail of Tears: The Story of the Cherokee Removal. New York: Benchmark Books, 2002.

Clay, Henry (1777–1852) Southern–born politician who was one of the greatest orators of the pre–Civil War United States. Clay was a nationalist who proposed the American System to help the country grow and worked to keep sectionalism between North and South from deepening. Clay, born in Virginia, moved to Kentucky at an early age and considered that state his home. Originally a Jeffersonian Republican who opposed a national bank, protective tariffs, and other programs that would strengthen the federal government, Clay was also a war hawk who supported the U.S. declaration of war on Great Britain in 1812. The war changed Clay’s perception of the United States, especially his work with the 1814 Treaty of Ghent that ended the war. During much of the period from 1811 to 1825, Clay was Speaker of the House and was the first speaker to take an active role in legislation discussed in the House. In 1820, Clay took a leading role in crafting the Missouri Compromise, putting aside temporarily the growing rift over slavery between North and South. In 1824, Clay began his quest to push through Congress a plan he called the American System, designed

to strengthen the United States and turn the growing country into a self– sufficient economic powerhouse. The American System included federally funded internal improvements, such as roads and canals, and a series of protective tariffs designed to foster the growth of the American economy. Clay intended that his proposed system would unite North, South, and West and overcome the growing sectionalism that was straining the country. Clay ran for president in 1824. The election of 1824 was disputed, and Clay, who did not win enough votes to be considered a finalist, threw his support behind John Quincy Adams (1825–1829), who emerged as the victor after being chosen by the House of Representatives. Later, Adams named Clay his secretary of state. Clay successfully negotiated nine commercial treaties during this time and supported the newly independent republics in Central and South America. After the end of Adams’s presidency in 1829, Clay returned to the Senate in 1831, then ran again for president as a National Republican against Andrew Jackson (1829–1837) in 1832. Clay was defeated and remained in the Senate, where he became a key player in putting together the Compromise Tariff of 1833, which slowly lowered the taxes on imported goods. By the 1840s, Clay had become a leader of the new Whig Party, which nominated him as its presidential candidate in 1844. He lost again, however, this time to Democrat James K. Polk (1845–1849), over the issues of slavery and the annexation of Texas.

Compromise of 1820

✪ 27

Pennsylvania-born artist Peter F. Rothermel (1812–1895) drew this image of Senator Henry Clay arguing the Compromise of 1850 before his colleagues. Clay, known as “the Great Compromiser,” initially had his recommendations rejected by the Senate because of sectional differences. Later, however, when his proposals were introduced as separate bills, each one was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Millard Fillmore (1850–1853).

Clay returned to the Senate yet again in 1849. By this time, the slavery issue was threatening to tear the country apart. Clay used his remaining energy to push through the Compromise of 1850, which again averted a split between North and South. Fatally ill, he resigned his seat and died in 1852 from tuberculosis.

FURTHERREADING

See also: American System; Election of 1824.

Also known as the Missouri Compromise, this congressional action

Baxter, Maurice G. Henry Clay and the American System. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2004. Remini, Robert V. Henry Clay: Statesman for the Union. New York: W.W. Norton, 1991.

Compromise of 1820

28

✪

Compromise of 1820

regarding the admission of Missouri as a state. The compromise of 1820 aggravated the simmering issue of slavery in the United States. Ever since the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788, the presence of slavery was a contradictory notion in a nation that proclaimed that “all men are created equal.” By 1820, most Northern states had abolished slavery, and though free blacks were treated as second– class citizens, they could live their lives without being enslaved. Southern states, however, condoned slavery of African Americans as an economic and social necessity. The production of cotton, tobacco, rice, and other crops was labor intensive. Black slaves were used extensively to plant, maintain, and harvest such crops. As settlement pushed westward into the Mississippi valley, slavery followed into the lands that would become the states of Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Kentucky. By 1818, the population of white settlers in Missouri reached 60,000, enough for the territory to be considered for admission to the Union as a state. Accordingly, the territorial legislature petitioned Congress for permission to elect a state government and write a draft constitution. Henry Clay presented the Missouri petition to the House of Representatives in December 1818. In February 1819, New York representative James Tallmadge introduced an amendment to the Missouri statehood bill that prohibited “the further introduction of slavery or involuntary servitude” in Missouri,

except for punishment of crimes. Furthermore, Tallmadge stipulated that all children born to slave parents would be free at age 25. The debate over Tallmadge’s amendment became heated. Tallmadge’s amendment eventually passed the House but failed in the Senate. No further action was taken by Congress before it adjourned. New York had just finished gradually emancipating its slaves; Tallmadge’s proposal was similar to the plan New York had used to free its slaves. ONGOING DEBATE When Congress came back into session in December 1819, debate about Missouri continued. Southern defenders of slavery argued along constitutional lines about whether or not Congress had the power to regulate slavery in the territories. Northern opponents of slavery contended that the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate the territories and, after 1808, to control movement of slaves across state lines. The abolition movement had not yet become very strong in the North. Most of the people who wanted to restrict slavery were concerned about Southern political power based on slavery. The three–fifths clause in the Constitution, under which slaves were counted as “three–fifths” of a person, gave the South additional representation in the House of Representatives. Thus, in close votes in the House, the South held a political advantage because it was represented not only by its white population but also by three–fifths of its slave population. The Missouri question was the

Compromise of 1820

first major conflict in the eventual rift between North and South. While Congress argued, President James Monroe (1817–1825) worked with Representative Henry Clay and other congressional leaders to find a solution. Senate leaders linked the admission of Maine as a free state with Missouri as a slave state. Maine had been a part of Massachusetts, which in June 1819 decided to allow Maine to seek statehood. Yet the arguments continued until Senator Jesse Thomas of Illinois added an amendment to the statehood bill. Thomas proposed that slavery be prohibited in the remaining portion of the Louisiana Territory north of Missouri’s southern border. Negotiations continued, and enough Northern members of Congress voted in favor of the compromise—without the Tallmadge amendment, which would have eventually ended slavery in the state. The House vote was 134–42, and the Senate vote was 24–20. Southerners felt that they had achieved success with the Missouri Compromise. The compromise preserved the principle that the local population controlled their own destiny in making the choice whether to allow slavery. The fight over slavery in the Missouri Territory, however, caused Southerners to band together to defend slavery as an essential way of life. A SLAVE CONSTITUTION When the Missouri government wrote a constitution, it included the legalization of slavery in perpetuity— meaning indefinitely—and also forbade free blacks and mixed–race

✪ 29

people from entering the state. When this constitution was presented to Congress, many Northerners refused to vote in favor unless the restriction on movement was deleted. Clay again brought about a compromise when the state government agreed not to pass any law that contradicted the U.S. Constitution. However, the state legislature ignored Congress and passed a law stating that the federal Congress had no jurisdiction over this question. Congress, tired of the Missouri question, failed to act against the state. President Monroe signed the statehood bill into law on August 10, 1821. A divisive issue The Missouri question showed that the slavery issue was a highly explosive national question that would not be easily dealt with. The issue invoked sectionalism and would continue to affect the growth of the United States as the nation spread westward. The Missouri question led to the split of the Democratic–Republican Party into Northern and Southern factions, the formation of the Whig Party in the 1830s, and eventually, the onset of the Civil War (1861–1865). The threat to the Union Two contemporary comments on the compromise revealed the divisive effect of slavery. Former president Thomas Jefferson (1801–1809) wrote that the slavery question was: like a fire bell in the night. . . . I considered it at once as the knell of the union. It is hushed, indeed, for the moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a final

C

30

✪

Compromise of 1820

sentence. . . . I regret now that I am to die in the belief, that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self–government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I live not to weep over it. Future president John Quincy Adams (1825–1829) had a similar viewpoint: If slavery be the destined sword of the hand of the destroying angel which is to sever the ties of this Union, the same sword will cut in sunder the bonds of slavery itself. A dissolution of the Union for the cause of slavery would be followed by a servile war in the slave–holding States, combined with a war between the two severed portions of the Union. It seems to me that its result might be the extirpation of slavery from this whole continent; and, calamitous and desolating as this course of events in its progress must be, so glorious would be its final issue, that, as God shall judge me, I dare not say that it is not to be desired. See also: Compromise of 1850; Slavery.

FURTHERREADING Burgan, Michael. The Missouri Compromise. Mankato, Minn.: Compass Point Books, 2006. Forbes, Pierce. The Missouri Compromise and Its Aftermath: Slavery and the Meaning of

America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007.

Compromise of 1850 Major congressional attempt to solve the divisive slavery issue in the United States by regulating the expansion of slavery in the territories and enacting a new fugitive slave law. The earlier Compromise of 1820 had attempted to solve the slavery issue, but by 1850, it was simply too immense and pressing to ignore. The U.S. victory in the MexicanAmerican War (1846–1848) and the subsequent Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) had added thousands of square miles of new territory to the United States. Members of the Whig Party, who had opposed the war, believed that the conflict had been a plot by slavery supporters to spread slavery into the new territories. Then, in 1848, gold was discovered in the newly acquired area of California. Over the next year, thousands of gold–hungry miners descended on the region, enough people to form a state. The California legislature petitioned Congress for permission to write a state constitution and seek admission to the Union. Arguments immediately began about whether California would be a free or slave state. Southerners were angered because the admission of a free state would upset the balance between votes of free and slave states in the Senate. Northerners feared that Texas, whose boundary with the New Mexico Territory was in dispute, would later be divided into several new slave states.

Compromise of 1850

President Zachary Taylor (1849– 1850), a Whig, advocated that both California and New Mexico should bypass the territorial stage and apply immediately for statehood as free states. Once both had been admitted as states, residents in each could decide for themselves whether to remain free or allow slaves. Taylor himself was a Southerner and a slaveholder, but he was also, above all else, committed to maintaining the United States as a single political entity. When angry Southerners threatened to secede, he did what President Andrew Jackson (1829–1837) had done years earlier—he warned them that he would use military force to preserve the Union if necessary. SEEKING COMPROMISE On January 29, 1850, Henry Clay gave a long speech to seek a compromise that would satisfy everyone and calm the nation. His bill included five provisions: • California would be admitted as a free state. • The rest of the territory acquired from Mexico would be organized into the territories of Utah and New Mexico without restriction on slavery. • Texas’s debt would be assumed by the federal government. • The slave trade, but not slavery itself, would be abolished in the District of Columbia. • A stronger fugitive slave law would be passed to ensure the return of runaway slaves. However, opponents of certain sections teamed to defeat Clay’s bill. Clay

✪ 31

was 72 years old and his health was declining. The defeat sent him into retirement. Illinois senator Stephen A. Douglas then took charge and worked hard to push a series of five separate bills through Congress. Senators Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and John C. Calhoun of South Carolina gave heated speeches about the bills, while other politicians also argued their points of view. On July 9, 1850, President Taylor suddenly died after a brief illness. The true cause of Taylor’s death has never been fully established. On July 4, 1850, Taylor consumed a snack of milk and cherries at an Independence Day celebration on a very hot Washington afternoon. He also sampled several dishes presented to him by well-wishing citizens. The official cause of death, however, was listed as gastroenteritis, an inflammation of the stomach and intestinal tract. COMPROMISE AT LAST The new president, Millard Fillmore (1850–1853), indicated that he was in favor of a compromise. He signed the five bills into law between September 9 and 20, 1850. The immediate result of the Compromise of 1850 was political support from both North and South because the Union was preserved. However, the relative calm did not last long. When slave owners crossed the Mason–Dixon Line in search of their property, antislavery newspapers in the North ensured that the abolition point of view became more widely accepted. In 1854, Senator Douglas rammed through Congress the Kansas–

C

32

✪

Compromise of 1850

Millard Fillmore (1800–1874) Following the death of Zachary Taylor in 1850, Millard Fillmore became the 13th president of the United States. A New Yorker, Fillmore had been born in a log cabin and had very little formal schooling. At age 23, Fillmore became a lawyer in Buffalo and later was elected to the state legislature. His time in the legislature was followed by nine years in the U.S. House of Representatives. In 1848, he became comptroller of New York State. The Whig Party nominated Fillmore as Zachary Taylor’s vice-presidential running mate in 1848. Taylor and Fillmore did not meet until after the election, and the president ignored

Nebraska Act, which advocated the doctrine of popular sovereignty and shattered the compromise. His rash action tilted the nation toward civil war. See also: Calhoun, John C., Clay, Henry; Compromise of 1820; Slavery; Taylor, Zachary; Webster, Daniel.

Fillmore when forming his cabinet. Taylor died unexpectedly on July 9, 1850, and Fillmore became president. As vice president, he had presided over the Senate during the contentious debate over the Compromise of 1850, which expanded slavery in the territories and which Taylor had opposed. Fillmore though, decided to sign the package of five bills into law. He explained, “God knows that I detest slavery, but it is an existing evil, for which we are not responsible, and we must endure it, till we can get rid of it without destroying the last hope of free government in the world.”

FURTHERREADING Hamilton, Holman. Prologue to Conflict: The Crisis and Compromise of 1850. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2005. Waugh, John C. On the Brink of Civil War: The Compromise of 1850 and How It Changed the Course of American History. Lanham, Md.: SR Books, 2003.

D–E Democracy See: Voting and Nationalism.

Democratic Party American political party that began during the Jacksonian era of the 1820s and continues today as one of

two major political parties in the country. The people who rallied around President Andrew Jackson (1829–1837) were originally known as Jackson’s Party. The coalition included former members of the Democratic-Republican Party, Southern and Western farmers, many Southern

Democratic Party

slave owners, Catholics, and several groups of evangelical Protestants (including Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Disciples of Christ). SMALL GOVERNMENT, STRICT INTERPRETATION The common bond among these various groups included opposition to a strong national government, a tradition once held by the Jeffersonian Republicans, one of the nation’s first political parties and followers of Thomas Jefferson (1801–1809). The party’s philosophy during the period before the Civil War (1861–1865) included a strict interpretation of the Constitution, greater states’ rights, small government, and limited federal spending. Jackson and his followers appealed to the common people, helping create the image of the Democratic Party as the “party of the people.” In the late 1820s, Democratic leader Martin Van Buren was one of the prime organizers of the Jacksonian coalition that elected Jackson in 1828 and again in 1832. The Democratic Party was especially strong in both its state and national organization, which enabled the party to dominate national politics until the Civil War. Between 1828 and 1860, the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives for 24 years and the Senate for 26. Throughout that period, the party’s strength increasingly came from the South. The 1832 Democratic National Convention adopted a two–thirds rule, which stated that the Democratic presidential nominee must have won two–thirds of the delegates’ votes. Thus, the South domi-

✪ 33

nated the nominating conventions and controlled the process of selecting the Democratic nominee. Jackson strengthened the spoils system, in which the political party in power replaced federal employees with loyal party supporters. Although perhaps only 10 percent of the employees were replaced, this process attracted criticism from Jackson’s opponents. Postmasters were the most affected by the spoils system. Post offices were spread across the country, and local Jackson supporters were rewarded by being appointed to head them. In addition, the federal government grew during Jackson’s two terms in office. By the time he left office in March 1837, the federal government had grown by 60,000 employees, almost doubling the number of federal workers. POPULAR APPEAL The Democratic Party used newspapers effectively to ensure that the party’s ideas and beliefs reached the people. As the modern two–party system emerged in the 1830s and 1840s, newspaper editors were often local party bosses who turned their papers into partisan newssheets. Many larger towns and cities had two newspapers, each serving as an official mouthpiece for one of the parties. For Van Buren, the future strength of the party lay with politically mobilized farmers and planters. Van Buren believed that working-class men and immigrants were also future Democrats. Strong state committees worked hard to spread the Democratic Party message.

D– E

34

✪

Democratic Party

Democratic Presidential Candidates, 1836–1860

1836 1840 1844 1848 1852 1856 1860

Democratic candidate

Popular votes

Martin Van Buren (won) Martin Van Buren (lost) James K. Polk (won) Lewis Cass (lost) Franklin Pierce (won) James Buchanan (won) Stephen Douglas (lost) John C. Breckinridge (lost) John Bell (lost)

Percentage of popular votes

Electoral votes

765,483

50.9%

170

1,127,781

46.9%

60

1,338,464

49.6%

170

1,222,342

42.5%

127

1,601,117

50.8%

254

1,832,955

45.3%

174

1,382,713

29.5%

39

848,356

18.1%

72

592,906

12.6%

39

Thus, the Democratic Party controlled the executive branch of the federal government for 16 years between 1836 and 1860. WHIG OPPOSITION The opposition Whigs learned quickly that party organization was essential to win the presidency. The Democrats actually contributed to William Henry Harrison’s 1840 win by poking fun at him; their tactic backfired when the Whigs took advantage of the situation and created the slogan “Log cabin and hard cider democracy.” The Democrats had criticized the Whig candidate by saying that Harrison was unfit to govern and would be happy sitting in front of a log cabin with a gallon of hard cider. Eight years later, in 1848, Mexican War hero Zachary Taylor 1849–1850

won a close election based on his war record. A PARTY DIVIDED The Democratic Party, however, was divided on the slavery issue. The successful partnership that Van Buren crafted between his native New York State and the South collapsed as arguments about the slavery issue became more and more frequent. In addition, Southern control of Congress angered many Northerners, and when Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois led the fight to pass the Kansas– Nebraska Act in 1854, the party began to slowly unravel. This law allowed the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to decide the issue of slavery when they applied for statehood, providing the possibility that slavery would spread north.

Democratic–Republican Party

While Southerners applauded this law, many Northern Democrats opposed it. As the election of 1860 approached, the Democrats split into Northern and Southern factions, each of which nominated a candidate for president. A third faction, called the Constitutional Union Party, chose John Bell of Tennessee as a presidential candidate in a desperate attempt to keep the peace. Together, these factions received about 60 percent of the popular vote. Republican Abraham Lincoln (1861–1865), however, won about 40 percent of the popular vote but easily carried the Electoral College vote. Soon after Lincoln’s election in November 1860 as the 16th president, the states of the Deep South began to secede, setting the stage for the Civil War. See also: Adams, John Quincy; Jackson, Andrew; Van Buren, Martin; Whig Party.

FURTHERREADING Fish, Bruce, and Becky D. Fish. The History of the Democratic Party. New York: Chelsea House, 2000. Whitcover, Jules. Party of the People: A History of the Democrats. New York: Random House, 2003.

Democratic–Republican Party Name of the American political party that was founded by Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) and that was in existence until 1828. The name Democratic–Republican was given to this party by later historians to avoid confusion with the modern Republican Party, which was founded in 1854. Most people in the nineteenth

✪ 35

century referred to Jefferson’s party as the Republican Party or as the Jeffersonian Republicans. EARLY YEARS Thomas Jefferson was one of the founders of the United States. The chief author and a signer of the Declaration of Independence (1776), Jefferson was also the nation’s third president (1801–1809). Jefferson was a Virginian, a gentleman farmer, and a slave owner. People who thought like Jefferson gathered around him to form the beginning of the opposition to the Federalist Party, which controlled the U.S. government during the presidencies of George Washington (1789–1797) and John Adams (1797–1801). Washington was not at all interested in politics; in his farewell address to Congress, he warned against the dangers of bickering political parties. Adams was a Federalist and continued Washington’s policies of economic development, which had been put in place by Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of the Treasury. Jefferson’s allies included men such as James Madison (1809–1817) and James Monroe (1817–1825). Jeffersonians believed in the strict interpretation of the Constitution. Jefferson once said that the best government was that which governed least. He and his supporters advocated a weak federal government, a small army and navy, liberalized voting rights, and protection of the rural, agrarian, farming lifestyle that Jefferson believed was the future of the country. Jefferson hated cities and urban life. “The mobs of great cities,”

D– E

36

✪

Democratic–Republican Party

he wrote, “add just so much to the support of pure government as sore to the strength of the human body.” Jefferson also opposed the growing economic strength of the northeastern United States, with its factories and overseas trade, which passed through the ports of Philadelphia, New York, and Boston. According to Jefferson, land ownership enabled a person to take pride in living off his own land as a small farmer protected by a distant government. Jefferson also believed in equality and in increased suffrage, or the right to vote. By 1824, most states liberalized their voting laws to enable more and more white men to vote. Property laws were repealed or relaxed, and electoral districts were made smaller, making it easier for voters to get to a polling place. Though Jefferson said that he believed in equality, he owned slaves. Critics have pointed this out as a paradox of the man who wrote “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson, however, was simply a man of his time. While Jefferson was president, the opposing Federalist Party was declining. Jefferson was succeeded by James Madison and James Monroe, each of whom also served two terms. All three presidents were from Virginia, while three of their four vice presidents were from New York. This Virginia–New York alliance was the strength of the Democratic–Republicans. By 1816, the Federalist Party had lost all its support, and in the election of 1820, Monroe had no

opposition, receiving every electoral vote except one. ERA OF GOOD FEELINGS This period in U.S. history, the so– called Era of Good Feelings, meant the absence of partisan politics and well–organized political parties. With the sharp decline of the Federalists after the War of 1812, the Democratic–Republican Party controlled the government and Congress. However, the lack of opposition eventually led to splits in the party and its collapse. This process began as early as 1811, when a large number of new members of Congress were elected, including future leaders Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun. These new men were more nationalistic than their elders, advocated war with England in 1812, and called for a more aggressive foreign policy that could be achieved by economic growth and an expanded government. These ideas were opposite the beliefs of most of the Democratic–Republicans, beginning the slow decline of the party. The party’s demise took place during the election of 1824. Four Democratic–Republicans ran: Clay, Andrew Jackson, William H. Crawford, and John Quincy Adams. None of these contenders received enough electoral votes to win, but Adams (1825–1829) was selected by the House of Representatives. This contentious election split the party. A coalition of supporters grew around Jackson and called itself the Democratic Party, while followers of Henry Clay became the National Republicans.

Election of 1820

See also: Election of 1824; National Republican Party; Democratic Party.

FURTHERREADING Howe, Daniel W. What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815– 1848. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Reichley, A. James. The Life of the Parties: A History of American Political Parties. New York: The Free Press, 1992.

Election of 1820 A lackluster presidential campaign in which James Monroe (1758–1831), the sitting president, easily won a second term. The Panic of 1819, the first major economic crisis in the United States, was not blamed on Monroe or his actions. Monroe, a Jeffersonian Democratic–Republican, had no opposition during the campaign. The opposition Federalist Party was in decline and ceased to exist at the national level. Monroe hoped to be president of a united nation, and in 1817, shortly after his first term as president began, he spent three-anda-half months on a goodwill tour of the North. Everywhere he went, Monroe was cheered by huge crowds, even in Boston, the bastion of federalism. A city newspaper hailed the president’s visit as the “Era of Good Feelings,” a name that described his presidency. In spite of the economic panic that started in 1819, and the beginning of national debate over the slavery issue that was a result of Missouri’s petition for admission as a state, Monroe was never in jeopardy when the election of 1820 neared.

✪ 37

When the Democratic–Republican caucus was instructed to assemble to formally nominate Monroe as the party candidate, only 40 congressmen showed up, not enough to do business. Though there was bad weather, apathy (lack of interest) was another factor. Monroe, therefore, was never formally nominated as a presidential candidate. The Federalists, in decline, never even fielded a candidate. While the debate over the Missouri question continued in Congress, rumors spread that Monroe, a Virginian, might veto the legislation that became the Missouri Compromise (also known as the Compromise of 1820). With the advice of his Cabinet, Monroe signed the bill into law on March 2, 1820, well in advance of the November voting. By doing so, Monroe deflected a movement from Northern congressmen of his party to nominate an opposition candidate if he vetoed the bill. In the election of 1824, Monroe won 231 of 232 electoral votes. Only William Plumer of New Hampshire voted against Monroe, awarding his electoral vote to John Quincy Adams. A historical myth has persisted that Plumer decided to vote against Monroe because he felt that only George Washington (1732– 1799) deserved a unanimous vote. In reality, however, Plumer wrote that he voted against Monroe because the president showed “a want of foresight and economy; and . . . because he grossly neglected his duty.” See also: Era of Good Feelings.

D– E

38

✪

Election of 1820

James Monroe (1758–1831) The nation’s fifth president (1817– 1825), Monroe was the fourth president from Virginia. Six feet (1.8 m) tall and thin, Monroe “had a rare ability of putting men at ease by his courtesy, his lack of condescension, his frankness, and by what his contemporaries looked upon as his essential goodness and kindness of heart.” Coming into office after the War of 1812 (1812–1814), Monroe presided over the “Era of Good Feelings,” a time in which there was only one major political party in the United States, the Democratic–Republican Party. Most of Monroe’s cabinet mem-

FURTHERREADING Hart, Gary. James Monroe. New York: Times Books, 2005. Levy, Debbie. James Monroe. Minneapolis, Minn.: Lerner Publications, 2004.

Election of 1824 Presidential election among four candidates of the same party, resulting in no clear winner. The election was decided by the House of Representatives, as directed by the Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The election of 1824 was also the first one in which records of the popular vote were kept. Before 1824, most delegates to the Electoral College were chosen by state legislatures rather than by popular vote. By the 1824 race, however, only six states

bers served in both of his two terms, providing continuity and stability during his administration. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams was a very capable diplomat, acquiring Florida from Spain and fixing the U.S.-Canadian border. In the field of diplomacy, Monroe is best remembered for his December 1823 message to Congress, warning European powers to stay out of the Western Hemisphere. Known as the Monroe Doctrine, this policy became a mainstay of U.S. diplomacy over the years and is still used today in certain instances.

(out of 24) still required that state legislatures chose their electors. Politics was thus becoming more democratic as the common people grew interested in voting in national elections. CANDIDATES EMERGE President James Monroe (1817– 1825) served two terms as president. During the “Era of Good Feelings,” there was only one loosely organized political party, the Democratic– Republican Party. The past three presidents—Thomas Jefferson (1801– 1809), James Madison (1809–1817), and Monroe—were all members of this party. During Monroe’s second term, talk soon began about who would succeed him in the Oval Office. In all, 16 men publicly declared an interest in serving as president.

Election of 1824

By early 1824, however, only four candidates remained. The most logical heir to Monroe was his secretary of the Treasury, Georgia native William H. Crawford. A second was the president’s secretary of state, Massachusetts–born John Quincy Adams, eldest son of President John Adams (1797–1801). The third candidate was Henry Clay of Kentucky, Speaker of the House and champion of his American System of economic nationalism—the idea that America should become economically self– sufficient. Finally, there was Andrew Jackson of Tennessee, hero of the War of 1812 (1812–1814). The presidential campaign showed that there were no clearly defined issues at stake. All four men were in favor of some type of protective tariff and wanted to try to end the devastating economic effects of the Panic of 1819. As in past elections, the candidates remained in the background and entrusted their followers with winning voters. This election marked the beginning of campaign managers, especially with Andrew Jackson. His supporters used newspapers effectively throughout 1824, conducting the first simple public opinion polls. The presidential race turned on the personalities of the candidates. Some mudslinging occurred during the campaign as the nominees sparred with each other. For example, Southerners opposed to Adams insinuated that the New Englander had not fully supported the question of the American right to use the Mississippi River during the negotiations that ended the War of 1812. Adams

✪ 39

reasoned that this topic came up in order to enhance Clay’s standing with Western voters. An Illinois representative accused Crawford of mishandling Treasury funds, a completely false charge nevertheless made public. Clay called Jackson a “military chieftain” who wanted to be president. In turn, rumors surfaced that Clay had withdrawn from the race, which hurt his presidential aspirations. In late 1823, Secretary Crawford suffered a stroke that left him partially paralyzed but determined to remain in the race. His condition was covered up by his supporters for a time, and by mid–1824, he was doing well but never fully recovered from the stroke. ELECTION RESULTS When voters went to the polls in November, no clear winner emerged. Jackson garnered the most popular votes (151,271), winning 11 states and 99 electoral votes. Adams, with 113,122 popular votes, took seven states and 84 electoral votes. Crawford and Clay each won only 3 states and 78 electoral votes combined. The House Chooses The Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution spelled out what would happen in an election when no one had the majority vote in the Electoral College. The three candidates with the most votes would remain candidates, which meant that Clay was dropped from consideration. Then, it was up to the House of Representatives to choose the winner. Each state’s delegation would cast one vote based on the

D– E

Election of 1824

Four candidates—all Democratic-Republicans—won electoral votes in the Election of 1824, but none secured the majority needed to win the presidency. Therefore, in early 1825, the House of Representatives elected John Quincy Adams as the nation’s sixth president, even though he had won fewer electoral votes than Andrew Jackson.

Election of 1828

decision of the majority of each delegation. Thus, each state had equal power, no matter its size or population, and delegates were not bound to respect the popular vote. As speaker of the House, Henry Clay possessed the means to award his support to the ultimate winner of this election. The Kentucky legislature had instructed its delegation to support Jackson. Clay, who was no friend of Jackson’s, had met privately with Adams in January 1825 and decided to support Adams. A Bitter Result On February 9, 1825, the House gathered to cast its votes for president. Clay presided over the session. When it ended, Adams received 13 states, the majority needed for election; Jackson had 7 states, and Crawford 4. Furious, Jackson supporters accused Clay of a “corrupt bargain” with Adams. “The people have been cheated,” said Jackson. Indeed, it seemed so when Adams asked Clay to be his secretary of state. This bitter ending set the stage for the next highly contested presidential election. Jackson’s supporters believed the election was stolen from their candidate and quickly began working to secure the 1828 election for Jackson. See also: Adams, John Quincy; Clay, Henry; Election of 1828; Jackson, Andrew.

FURTHERREADING Gumbel, Andrew. Steal This Vote: Dirty Elections and the Rotten History of Democracy in America. New York: Nation Books, 2005.

✪ 41

Remini, Robert V. The Election of Andrew Jackson. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1963.

Election of 1828 The first election of Andrew Jackson and the heated presidential election considered by many historians to be the first modern campaign for the presidency. Andrew Jackson was furious after losing the 1824 election and learning that Henry Clay had become the new secretary of state in the John Quincy Adams (1825–1829) administration. His followers felt that a “corrupt bargain” had been agreed to by Clay and Adams to steal the election from Jackson, who had won the popular vote in 1824. JACKSON VERSUS ADAMS The Tennessee legislature endorsed Jackson for president in October 1825, giving him three years to plan a new campaign. In the end, Jackson’s superior campaign organization provided the difference that enabled Jackson to win in 1828. Martin Van Buren, a wily New York politician, became Jackson’s unofficial campaign manager and worked hard to put together a coalition of those who opposed the Adams administration. Jackson’s supporters became known simply as Jackson’s Party. The party stood for a weaker federal government, states’ rights, no tariffs, and other beliefs once championed by the Democratic–Republican Party. Adams and his followers were known as the National Republican Party, which supported Henry Clay’s American System—a plan for making the nation self–sufficient and

D– E

42

✪

Election of 1828

economically sound. The party won control of both houses of Congress and was poised to assist Adams and Clay, but failed to implement much of its legislation because of the indifference shown to Adams by his opponents. Jackson’s supporters included many congressmen who continually thwarted the National Republican intentions and created even more ill will toward the administration. Jackson’s Party gained control of Congress after the mid–term elections in late 1826. It was then possible to craft a tariff that would drive voters toward their party. The 1828 “Tariff of Abominations” was designed for that purpose. Tariff supporters had included taxes on imports of iron (to please Pennsylvania), wool (for Western farmers and New York), molasses, hemp, and other items. The tariff also levied duties that discriminated against New England manufacturers. Southerners were angry at high duties, but Democrats in Congress supported the tariffs because they were certain Southerners would vote for Jackson because they would not vote for Adams. THE CAMPAIGN When the actual campaign began later that year, it quickly degenerated into one of the dirtiest presidential campaigns in U.S. history. Democratic newspapers denounced Adams on several issues. A false rumor circulated that while minister to Russia, he had hired an American girl as a prostitute for Russian czar Alexander I (r. 1801–1825). Adams was accused of acting like a king, strutting around the White House and spending more

than $25,000 for gambling equipment. He and his wife had premarital relations, said others. And of course the “corrupt bargain” of 1825 was still used against the president. Jackson’s marriage also came under close scrutiny. When he married Rachael Donelson in 1791, she believed she had received a divorce but in fact was still married to the man from whom she had separated. She was not actually divorced until 1793; Rachael and Andrew were remarried in 1794. “Ought a convicted adulteress and her paramour husband to be placed in the highest offices of this free and Christian land?” asked a Cincinnati editor. Jackson’s mother was accused of being a prostitute for the British army during the American Revolution (1775–1783), then of marrying a mulatto man, a person of mixed race, who fathered Jackson. Other newspapers concentrated on Jackson’s harsh temper and of his having killed men during duels. Jackson had executed six soldiers for various offenses during the War of 1812 (1812–1814). National Republicans circulated a “coffin handbill” decorated with black coffins and the names of those executed soldiers. Jackson’s Party held popular events such as barbeques, parades, and the erection of hickory poles across the country; Jackson was nicknamed “Old Hickory” because he was “as tough as hickory wood.” All these events, together with lithographs of the general, a mass–produced popular biography, and the first major use of political buttons and banners, were designed to ensure that potential voters knew who Jackson was

Election of 1828

and that he stood for the common man. The well–organized support behind Jackson clearly made an important difference when voters across the country went to the polls throughout September, October, and November (the country had not yet adopted a single day of voting). Only two states—South Carolina and Delaware— still used their state legislatures to choose members of the Electoral College rather than by popular vote. When the votes were counted, Jackson had received 56 percent of the vote (647,292), as opposed to

✪ 43

Adams with 44 percent (507,730). Jackson won the electoral vote 178– 83. His 56 percent margin of victory was the largest in the nineteenth century. Thus, as voting rights expanded and more people voted, a growing sense of nationalism spread through the country. See also: Adams, John Quincy; Election of 1824; Election of 1832; Jackson, Andrew.

FURTHERREADING Parsons, Lynn. The Birth of Modern Politics: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and the Election of 1828. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

In 1828, Andrew Jackson (1767–1845) won the first truly democratic election in U.S. history. Immensely popular with the common folk of the country, Jackson encountered large crowds during his 1829 trip to Washington to be sworn in as president.

D– E

44

✪

Election of 1832

Election of 1832 The reelection of Andrew Jackson and the presidential election that marked the first meetings of partynominating conventions. The election was the first time there was participation by a third political party. A new, third political party had emerged in the 1820s. After the mysterious disappearance of a former member of a New York Masonic lodge who was writing a tell–all book about the secret organization of the Masons, Americans who opposed such groups banded together in 1826 to form the Anti–Masonic Party. Delegates met in Baltimore in fall 1831 and nominated William Wirt as their presidential candidate. The Democratic Party nominated President Andrew Jackson (1829– 1837) as its candidate. The incumbent president remained highly popular during his first term, but his presidency was marred by fighting among his cabinet members. Jackson’s vice president, South Carolinian John C. Calhoun, was secretly working against Jackson. On behalf of his home state, Calhoun had written an anonymous pamphlet attacking high tariff laws as unconstitutional and arguing that a state could nullify a law if it felt such action was in its citizens’ best interests. The Peggy Eaton affair also hurt Jackson’s image. Secretary of War John Eaton had married Peggy Eaton, a woman with a scandalous past. Wives of other cabinet members refused to attend social events where Mrs. Eaton was present and snubbed

her in other ways as well. Jackson grew furious at his cabinet’s wives’ behavior. Secretary of State Martin Van Buren went out of his way to be nice to the Eatons. Yet, the situation worsened and tensions mounted. Van Buren suggested to Jackson that he would resign from the cabinet, paving the way for the other cabinet members to follow suit. Jackson then had the opportunity to reorganize his cabinet. The cabinet reorganization left Vice President Calhoun without allies and silenced his bid to become Jackson’s successor. The National Republican Party, following the Anti–Mason lead, also held a nominating convention. The party chose Kentuckian Henry Clay as its presidential nominee. The party attacked Jackson’s use of the spoils system to replace federal office holders during his administration. The National Republicans also drew up a party platform that endorsed Clay’s American System of widespread national improvements. As the election approached Jackson’s supporters once again took their message directly to the people with barbeques, parades, and other public shows of support. The voters responded by reelecting Jackson to a second term. He carried the electoral votes of 16 states and received more than 680,000 popular votes. Clay received 530,000 popular votes but carried the electoral votes of only six states. The Anti–Masons received about 100,000 popular votes and the seven electoral votes of Vermont. Two straight presidential defeats— 1828 and 1832—effectively ended the

Era of Good Feelings

National Republican Party, which fell apart after the election. Most of its members joined the new Whig Party. See also: Bank of the United States; Clay, Henry; Jackson, Andrew; Whig Party.

FURTHERREADING Curtis, James C. Andrew Jackson and the Search for Vindication. New York: Longman, 1997. Wilentz, Sean. Andrew Jackson. New York: Henry Holt, 2005.

Era of Good Feelings Popular name given to the period from about 1817 to the presidential election of John Quincy Adams in 1824, a time in which there was relative political tranquility in the United States. This period coincided with President James Monroe’s two terms (1817–1825). Events during the Era of Good Feelings helped make the United States a much stronger nation by the time Monroe left offi ce in March 1825. Although it seemed that there was indeed a period in U.S. history in which there were no competing political parties, there were rumblings of discontent under the smooth surface. MONROE’S PRESIDENCY James Monroe, a Democratic–Republican, handily won the presidential election of 1816, trouncing the last candidate whom the Federalist Party ran, with 183 to 34 electoral votes. In his inaugural address in March 1817, Monroe expressed hope for forth-

✪ 45

coming national unity. He wanted to govern by consensus and truly hoped that party fighting was a thing of the past. To help unify the country, in June, Monroe set off on a tour of the Northeast, the center of Federalist strength. Everywhere he went the president was met by cheering crowds. A Boston newspaper saw evidence of a new “era of good feelings.” This became the administration’s slogan. Learning their lessons well from shortcomings that surfaced during the War of 1812 (1812–1814), Democratic–Republicans now called for a stronger central government, a standing army, a national bank, protective tariffs, and federally funded internal improvements. The change in the party outlook effectively disarmed Federalist opposition. However, because the Democratic–Republicans now took in a wide range of supporters, it was only a matter of time until the party began to fragment, which happened in 1824. Monroe used his presidency not only to unite the nation but also to strengthen its standing in the world. The United States had acquired Florida from Spain in 1819 under the terms of the Adams–Onís Treaty and soon began demilitarizing the Great Lakes. In 1823, the president issued the Monroe Doctrine, warning European powers that the United States would not tolerate any interference with the recently independent nations in the Western Hemisphere. Monroe’s plan was to forestall any Spanish attempt to recapture its colonies in Central and South America. The United States clearly did not have

D– E

46

✪

Era of Good Feelings

the military power to prevent any European attacks, but the British were also in favor of the doctrine and indicated that the Royal Navy would help the United States. GROWING IMPORTANCE OF THE SUPREME COURT The Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Marshall, handed down an important series of rulings during this period that strengthened the Court’s jurisdiction and helped give the federal government more power over the states. Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816) ensured the Court’s power to review decisions by state courts. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) determined that a state could not tax the federal government, meaning that states did not have the right to provide an independent check of federal authority. In Dartmouth v. Woodward (1819), the Court ruled that a state did not have the right to alter existing contracts. (In this case, New Hampshire tried to change the charter of Dartmouth College.) A charter could only be changed by mutual consent. Finally, in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), Marshall ruled that the federal government had the power to regulate interstate commerce, as specified in the U.S. Constitution. A FRAGILE TIME The peaceful surface of the Era of Good Feelings was marred by two major events. The first was the Panic of 1819, a major economic downturn that lasted until 1823. Unemployment rose, land investment collapsed, agricultural prices fell, and banks failed. Yet, Monroe was not blamed

for this financial crisis. The postwar recovery of Europe after the Napoleonic Wars was partly to blame, as rising economies there meant that American goods were not in demand, and prices fell accordingly. The Bank of the United States, only two years old when the panic hit, contracted its money supply and contributed to the crisis. Because this was the first major economic downturn in the young nation, people did not know what to expect or have a point of comparison. Thus, when Monroe ran for reelection in 1820, the people did not hold the nation’s economic problems against him. The other major event that shook the nation’s politics was the Missouri problem that surfaced in 1818, when the Missouri Territory sought statehood. Congressional debate became heated and contentious as antislavery and proslavery advocates argued whether Missouri would be slave or free. The Compromise of 1820 temporarily ended the feuding between North and South, but the slavery issue would only continue to grow until the Civil War (1861–1865) and the Thirteenth Amendment (1865) ended the practice of slavery in the United States. By the time the presidential election of 1824 neared, the Era of Good Feelings was ending as the Democratic–Republican Party splintered into the factions that would grow into the two–party system. This system would endure until just before the Civil War. See also: Adams–Onís Treaty (1819); Compromise of 1820; Democratic–

Federalist Party (1792–1816)

Republican Party; Election of 1820; Election of 1824.

FURTHERREADING Hart, Gary. James Monroe. New York: Times Books, 2005.

✪ 47

Howe, Daniel W. What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815–1848. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Unger, Harlow Giles. The Last Founding Father: James Monroe and a Nation’s Call to Greatness. Cambridge, Mass.: Da Capo Press, 2009.

F–L Federalist Party (1792–1816) The name given to the supporters of the U.S. Constitution, people who dominated the government in the early years of the nation’s history. The party’s early leaders included Alexander Hamilton and John Adams (1797– 1801). Some historians contend that George Washington (1789–1797) could be considered a Federalist, but the first president hated political parties and remained aloof from partisan politics. The Federalists were a unifying force in the young nation because they managed to overcome sectional and economic differences to ensure ratification of the Constitution in 1788. When George Washington was elected as the country’s first president in 1789, Federalists were the dominant force in Congress—with 18 of 24 senators and 37 of 65 members of the House of Representatives. Washington appointed Hamilton secretary of the Treasury, allowing Hamilton to enact a program designed to strengthen the nation’s economy. Hamilton’s program included a national bank, federal assumption of the individual states’ war debts, pay-

ment of the outstanding federal debt, and protective tariffs on imports so that the nation’s young businesses could grow without overwhelming foreign competition. FEDERALIST SUPPORT Who supported the Federalists? Most of the nation’s wealthiest men were firm supporters of this party, as the party leadership looked down on the “common man.” Federalists were generally urban and conservative as well. Thomas Jefferson (1801–1809), an opponent of the Federalists, wrote that Federalists included “all the officers of the government, all who want to be officers, all timid men who prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty, British merchants, and Americans trading on British capital, speculators, and holders in the banks and public funds.” Many Federalists were sympathetic to Great Britain and wished to bolster their trading with that nation. Congregational churches supported the Federalists, especially those in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, where the Congregational church was the official state church. In Pennsylvania, Quakers generally were Federalists. Many Episcopalian and

F– L

48

✪

Federalist Party (1792–1816)

Presbyterian churches also supported the Federalists. Washington was reelected in 1792, again with John Adams as his vice president. Four years later, Washington retired, and Adams won the presidential election, maintaining the Federalist hold on the nation. However, by this time the opponents of the Federalist Party, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, were beginning to organize. Those who opposed the Federalists became known as the Republican Party or the Democratic–Republican Party. However in 1798, in response to increasing criticism from their opponents as well as in response to the actions of French agents in the United States, the Federalist–dominated Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were meant to stifle criticism of any public official and make it easier to deport aliens. These acts— which many people viewed as restricting American liberties—more than anything, hastened the end of the Federalists. DECLINE OF THE PARTY Democratic–Republican Thomas Jefferson won the 1800 presidential election and the Federalists never again won the presidency. The Federalist Party nominated candidates in every election up to 1816, but by this time, support for the party had crumbled. Their stance against the War of 1812 (1812–1814), when New England Federalists threatened secession in opposition to President James Madison’s (1809–1817) trade embargo, ensured that the party would not survive.

FURTHERREADING Reichley, A. James. The Life of the Parties: A History of American Political Parties. New York: The Free Press, 1992. Brown, Roger H. Redeeming the Republic: Federalists, Taxation, and the Origins of the Constitution. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000.

Florida See: Adams–Onís Treaty.

Indian Removal Act (1830) Congressional bill signed into law by President Andrew Jackson (1829– 1837), exchanging Native American land east of the Mississippi for land west of the river. Ever since European settlers had first come to North America in the 1500s and 1600s, they had clashed with Native Americans. When the United States became independent after the Revolutionary War (1775– 1783), the new U.S. government immediately had to fashion a policy with regard to the Native American tribes. At the time, most Americans believed that Native Americans were inferior, uncivilized, and deserved to be swept out of the way of the expanding nation. As early as 1803, after purchasing the Louisiana Territory, President Thomas Jefferson (1801–1809) came up with the idea of buying Native American land east of the Mississippi River in return for moving the tribes west of the river. The federal government, rather than the states, was given the authority to negotiate with Native Americans as a result of Section 8 of the Constitution and a 1790 law.

Indian Removal Act (1830)

GROWING PRESSURE Native Americans were under increasing pressure to give up their ancestral lands by settlers looking for more land as the nation’s population expanded. The most pressing problems were in the South, where the “Five Civilized Tribes”—Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw, and Seminole—owned millions of acres of

✪ 49

land that was coveted by their white neighbors. The Cherokee especially had decided to become much like their white neighbors to avoid being pressured into giving up their lands in what are now the states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee. In 1827, the tribe even adopted a constitution modeled on the American document.

Pushing Indians West

C

ongress passed the Indian Removal Act in 1830, just one year after Andrew Jackson (1829–1837) became president. This excerpt of the Indian Removal Act includes the powers granted to the president to carry out this piece of legislation.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That it shall and may be lawful for the President of the United States to cause so much of any territory belonging to the United States, west of the river Mississippi, not included in any state or organized territory, and to which the Indian title has been extinguished, as he may judge necessary, to be divided into a suitable number of districts, for the reception of such tribes or nations of Indians as may choose to exchange the lands where they now reside, and remove there; and to cause each of said districts be to so described by natural or artificial marks, as to be easily distinguished from every other.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for the President to exchange any and all of such districts, so to be laid off and described, with any tribe or nation within the limits of any of the states or territories, and with which the United States have existing treaties, for the whole or any part or portion of the territory claimed and occupied by such tribe or nation, within the bounds of any one or more of the states or territories, where the land claimed and occupied by the Indians, is owned by the United States, or the United States are bound to the state within which it lies to extinguish the Indian claim thereto.

F– L

50

✪

Indian Removal Act (1830)

When Andrew Jackson became president in 1829, he sought to avoid bloodshed by removing the five tribes from the Southern states in which they resided. Georgia was becoming especially forceful in its attempt to coerce the Cherokee to give up their land. Jackson recommended removal, and Congress, after a bitter debate, passed a bill that Jackson signed into law on May 28, 1830. This Indian Removal Act gave the president the power to negotiate land exchanges with Native American tribes. The government was authorized to purchase Native American land east of the Mississippi and remove its occupants to a district west of the river. The government promised to provide security as long as the tribe survived; if a tribe ceased to exist, its land would revert back to the United States. The president was also authorized to provide aid to all tribes wishing to take advantage of this law. REMOVAL TREATIES A treaty was signed with the Choctaw tribe later in 1830. A year later, about half the tribe chose to move west of the Mississippi, but more than 7,000 Native Americans decided to remain behind in their ancestral land in northern Mississippi and accept land ownership, a process dominated by fraud. The Chickasaw signed a treaty in 1832 and were gone from their Mississippi land by 1838. The Creek also signed a treaty in 1832 and were removed by 1837. The remaining two tribes fought against removal. The Cherokee, aided by compassionate missionaries and Northerners, took legal action.

Although two cases went before the Supreme Court—Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia (1832)—Jackson refused to enforce the Supreme Court’s decisions. In 1835, the Cherokee signed a treaty consenting to leave their land. They were removed between 1837 and 1838, a process that led to the deaths of almost 8,000 of the tribe along the “Trail of Tears.” The Seminole tribe signed a removal treaty in 1832 but then decided to refuse to leave Florida. The result was the Second Seminole War (1835–1842), a conflict that ended with the tribe’s forcible removal west of the Mississippi. President Jackson signed almost 70 removal treaties with Native Americans in the United States. The government spent $68 million to purchase more than 100 million acres from Native American tribes. Approximately 46,000 Native Americans settled west of the Mississippi in what is now Oklahoma. While most were from the Southern states, a few Northern tribes—Ottawa, Potawatomi, Sauk, and Fox—also signed treaties and left their homes. The government’s insistence on awarding contracts to the lowest bidders to provide food and clothing for the Native Americans moving west backfired. These contractors took advantage of the situation by providing inadequate supplies, thus causing extreme hardship for the Native Americans. See also: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831); Worcester v. Georgia (1832).

Jackson, Andrew (1767–1845)

FURTHERREADING Heidler, David S., and Jeanne T. Heidler, eds. Indian Removal (The Norton Casebooks in History). New York: W.W. Norton, 2006. Wallace, Anthony F.C. The Long, Bitter Trail: Andrew Jackson and the Indians. New York: Hill & Wang, 1993.

Jackson, Andrew (1767–1845) Seventh president of the United States. Jackson served two terms in office (1829–1837) and was, above all, a nationalist who championed the cause of the “common man” in the country. Jackson’s aggressive management of the presidency signaled a new era in U.S. politics. EARLY LIFE Born in South Carolina, Jackson at age 13 served in the American army during the Revolutionary War (1771– 1781). He was captured by the British and hated them for the rest of his life. He became a popular hero during the War of 1812 (1812–1814), defeating the Creek at Horseshoe Bend, Alabama, and then the British at New Orleans in January 1815. Jackson entered politics after moving to Tennessee, serving in the U.S. Congress in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and being a state superior court justice. He led U.S. troops into Florida in 1818 to attack the Seminole and created an international outrage when he executed two British citizens for aiding the Native Americans. President James Monroe (1817–1825) appointed Jackson as territorial governor of Florida after the United States obtained the land from Spain, but Jackson resigned be-

✪ 51

fore Monroe could remove him because of his harsh rule. A POPULAR NEW CANDIDATE Tennessee politicians nominated Jackson as their candidate for president in 1824, even though he had very little experience. However, Jackson had a national reputation and quickly gathered support. The election of 1824 resulted in Jackson receiving the most popular votes among the four candidates, but not enough electoral votes to win. Under the Constitution, the House of Representatives was required to decide the outcome. The House selected John Quincy Adams (1825–1829), who became the nation’s sixth president. Jackson’s supporters spent the next four years organizing for the election of 1828. Jackson easily won the 1828 election and then reelection in 1832. His backers formed the modern Democratic Party. JACKSON’S VIEW OF THE PRESIDENCY Jackson brought a new approach to the presidency. Previous chief executives had relied on Congress to make policy for the nation. Jackson, however, said that because he was elected by the people it was his place to make public policy and present it to Congress for approval. Jackson thus reflected the will of the people. If Congress passed laws that Jackson felt were not in the public’s best interest, he vetoed them. In fact, Jackson vetoed more bills in his eight years as president than all previous presidents combined. Jackson believed that public office holders ought to be rotated so that as many

F– L

52

✪

Jackson, Andrew (1767–1845)

citizens as possible could participate in the government. His use of the spoils system was heavily criticized by opponents. Jackson was opposed to the Bank of the United States because he believed it favored the rich and he vetoed its rechartering in 1832. He opposed federal funding of internal improvements unless they benefited more than one region of the country. Jackson was the leader in moving Native American tribes west of the Mississippi River to open up more land, especially in the South, to settlement by whites. The government’s mismanagement of this process was also heavily criticized by Jackson’s opponents. Although Jackson favored states’ rights, when South Carolina

threatened to nullify the Tariff of 1832 or secede from the Union, Jackson threatened to use force if necessary. After serving two terms as president, Jackson retired to his home, the Hermitage, near Nashville. He died there in 1845. See also: Bank of the United States; Election of 1824; Indian Removal Act; Nullification Crisis.

FURTHERREADING Berman, Carol H. Andrew Jackson. Minneapolis, Minn.: Lerner Publications, 2004. Cole, Donald B. The Presidency of Andrew Jackson. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1999. Remini, Robert V. Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars. New York: Viking, 2001.

M–P Maine See: Compromise of 1820; Webster– Ashburton Treaty (1842).

Monroe, James See: Election of 1820; Era of Good Feelings.

National Republican Party In existence from 1828 to 1832, American political party that was formerly part of the splintered Democratic–Republican Party and the forerunner of the Whig Party. The Democratic–Republican Party was the creation of Thomas Jefferson (1801–1809) and his allies, and it

controlled the federal government from 1800 to 1824. The presidential election of 1824 exposed the weakness of the Democratic–Republicans, who ran four opposing candidates without any opposition party. John Quincy Adams (1825–1829) won the heated 1824 election. His supporters became the National Republican Party, a name that reflected their belief in a strong national government that included the support of the entire United States, not just certain regions. The National Republicans advocated a protective tariff to help the growing northeastern commercial interests, a federal bank, federal supervision of public lands and their sales, federally funded internal

Nullification Crisis

✪ 53

improvements, and a strong foreign policy.

See also: Whig Party; Election of 1828; Election of 1832.

CALL FOR UNITY AND PROGRESS Adams, in his inaugural address, called for his listeners to rise above the hatred that had surfaced during the election and embrace each other as countrymen and friends. Adams tried to get Congress to pass an ambitious program of internal improvements. In spite of having control of Congress, the National Republicans could not muster enough votes to pass Adams’s program, including a national university and national observatory.

FURTHERREADING

OPPOSITION Opponents in Congress, who were working to ensure Andrew Jackson’s election in 1828, made sure that any ideas proposed by Adams would be defeated. His opponents combined to pass an unusually high tariff in 1828 that angered voters across the nation. Adams ran for reelection in 1828 but received only 44 percent of the popular vote. Andrew Jackson (1829–1837) easily won the electoral vote, 178 to Adams’s 83. Henry Clay earned the National Republican nomination for president in the election of 1832 but received only 37 percent of the popular vote and carried only six states—his own, Kentucky—and five Northern states. The two defeats in the 1828 and 1832 presidential elections signaled the end of the National Republicans. Many former National Republicans later joined the new Whig Party. This new party also called for national improvements, such as roads and canals, as well as a national bank.

Howe, Daniel W. What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815– 1848. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Reichley, A. James. The Life of the Parties: A History of American Political Parties. New York: The Free Press, 1992.

Native Americans See: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831); Trail of Tears; Worcester v. Georgia (1832).

Nullification Crisis Confrontation between the U.S. government and the state of South Carolina during the presidency of Andrew Jackson (1829–1837). At issue was a tariff, or tax on imported goods. South Carolina threatened to declare the tariff null and void, or not valid and unenforceable. The idea that a state could declare a federal law unconstitutional, however, was not a new idea to emerge in the 1820s. EARLY THOUGHTS ON NULLIFICATION After President John Adams (1797– 1801) signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law in 1798, opposition quickly erupted across the country. These laws attempted to limit criticism of the federal government and placed restrictions on immigrants. James Madison, then a member of the House of Representatives, wrote an opposition paper called the Virginia Resolution, while Vice President Thomas Jefferson secretly authored

M– P

54

✪

Nullification Crisis

the Kentucky Resolution. (The papers are also known as the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves.) Madison argued that individual states could prevent federal laws that were oppressive or inequitable. Jefferson took Madison’s argument one step further by declaring that a state could nullify any federal laws that its legislature deemed unconstitutional. Because the Alien and Sedition Acts were quickly repealed after Jefferson’s (1801–1809) election to the presidency, nothing serious came of the issue. The nullification crisis of the 1820s was a result of the Tariff of 1828, nicknamed at the time as the “Tariff of Abominations.” This tariff had unusually high rates but had been passed, in part, to ensure Andrew Jackson’s (1829–1837) election in 1828, with the expectation that he would adjust it to lower rates that would benefit Southern planters. Jackson, however, decided to retain the tariff’s rates to help pay off the national debt by 1833. As a result of Jackson’s decision, Southern planters became angry with the federal government. South Carolinians were especially distressed over the tariff and its effect on their state’s economy. Parts of the state were still feeling the effects of the economic downturn known as the Panic of 1819, and some state officials declared that the tariff was depriving planters of 40 percent of the value of their crops. Jackson’s vice president was John C. Calhoun, a native South Carolinian who was very upset with the situation. In late 1828, the South Carolina

legislature published Calhoun’s South Carolina Exposition and Protest anonymously to protect Calhoun’s standing as vice president. In his protest, Calhoun declared that the union of states was an agreement between individually sovereign states. Each state had the ability to declare any federal law null and void that it thought was oppressive. If a state decided to take this course of action, its people had to elect members of a special state convention to make the decision about a federal law. If a state decided to take the step of nullifying a federal law, Calhoun argued, it could then call for a national convention to meet to discuss the law, taking the further step of proposing to amend the U.S. Constitution, if necessary. CRISIS ERUPTS The nullification issue simmered until 1832, when the Tariff of 1832 became law. Even though this tariff significantly reduced rates, South Carolinians were still upset and in November elected a nullification convention. The convention members passed an ordinance declaring both the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 null within the borders of the state after February 1, 1833. If the government tried to force the state to comply with the tariff law, South Carolina would vote to secede from the United States. To President Jackson, South Carolina’s action was completely out of line and he would not tolerate such disruption of the Union. He issued a presidential proclamation on December 10, 1832, informing the people of

Polk, James K. (1795–1849)

South Carolina that their action was unconstitutional. “Disunion by armed force is treason,” he said. Jackson sent reinforcements to the forts in Charleston harbor and ordered General Winfield Scott to prepare for military intervention. “If one drop of blood be shed there in defiance of the laws of the United States,” declared the president, “I will hang the first man of them I can get my hands on to the first tree I can find.” To avoid a worsening of the situation, moderates in Congress quickly banded together to pass a new tariff, which gradually lowered rates through 1842. Jackson also requested the Force Act, which he signed into law on the same day as the tariff, March 2, 1833. The Force Act authorized Jackson to use troops to maintain order in South Carolina. Hot–headed South Carolinians accepted the new tariff and declared that they had won. The state convention reconvened and repealed its nullification of the tariffs. Although South Carolina lost its bid to nullify a federal law, radicals who opposed any compromises now controlled state politics. Throughout the next two decades, they worked even harder to defend their interests and slavery. As the abolition movement grew, Southern radicals took the nullification doctrine espoused by Calhoun one step further and declared that a state had the right to secede from the Union to protect its citizens from an oppressive federal government. See also: Protective Tariffs; Secession, Right of; States’ Rights.

✪ 55

FURTHERREADING Ellis, Richard. The Union at Risk: Jacksonian Democracy, States’ Rights, and the Nullification Crisis. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

Polk, James K. (1795–1849) Eleventh president of the United States, a Jacksonian Democrat who favored annexation of Texas and Oregon. Polk believed that the president, and not Congress, should shape national policies. He was a strict constructionist and consistently opposed any proposals that he felt would benefit one section of the country over another. After three years in the Tennessee legislature, Polk was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he remained until 1839. During his time in Washington, Polk was a strong supporter of President Andrew Jackson’s (1829–1837) policies. Polk’s hard work earned him the position of Speaker of the House during his last four years in Congress. Polk left Congress in 1839 to run for governor of Tennessee. He narrowly won election against the incumbent, but after only one three–year term as governor, he was defeated in 1841. Polk ran again for governor in 1843 but was again defeated. His political career appeared to be at a standstill. A SURPRISE CANDIDATE When the Democrats met in Baltimore to nominate a candidate for the 1844 presidential election, former president Martin Van Buren (1837– 1841) was favored to win the nomi-

M– P

56

✪

Polk, James K. (1795–1849)

nation. However, he failed to win the two–thirds majority of votes needed for nomination. Other candidates wore down Van Buren’s lead, but none could gather enough votes. On the eighth ballot, Polk’s name was brought forward, and one ballot later, he received enough votes as the Democrats’ presidential candidate. Polk was the first dark-horse candidate to receive his party’s presidential nomination. The Whig Party nominated Henry Clay as their presidential candidate. Clay was heavily favored in the election, but a third party, the Abolitionists, took enough Northern votes away from Clay so that Polk won the election with only 38,000 more popular votes than Clay. POLK’S TERM IN OFFICE Polk’s term as president was dominated by foreign affairs. In June 1846, U.S. and British commissioners agreed to define the U.S.-Canadian border, thus putting an end to confusion and conflict over the issue. The treaty that was signed extended the boundary along the 49th parallel of latitude directly to the Pacific Ocean, giving the United States the land that would later become the states of Washington, Oregon, and part of Idaho. Canada retained the entire Vancouver Island. Polk inherited the Texas problem after President John Tyler (1841– 1845) approved the annexation of the Republic of Texas just days before leaving office. An angry Mexico protested, and then began arguing over the southern border of Texas. The United States believed the Rio

Grande was the southern boundary, but Mexico claimed it was farther north, at the Nueces River. The Mexican– American War President Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor and his small army south to the Rio Grande to protect the boundary. Mexican troops crossed the Rio Grande and fought two small battles in May 1846. Congress declared war on May 13, an act heartily supported by the president. However, there was much opposition, especially across the North. Many people believed the war was engineered by the proslavery members of Congress to conquer new territory so that slavery could be expanded westward. Peace Treaty Negotiators worked out the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in February 1848. Under its terms, the southern boundary of Texas was fixed at the Rio Grande. The United States also received more than 500,000 square miles (129,499,405 sq hectares) of Mexican territory that included the future states of California, Utah, Nevada, and parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming. The United States paid Mexico $15 million for this territory and took over claims by U.S. citizens against Mexico, which amounted to another $3 million. Polk’s other major accomplishment was the creation of an independent Treasury in 1846. The successful bill mandated that all federal funds be deposited in treasuries independent of private banks. All debts owed to the federal government would be paid in gold and silver coins or in federal Treasury notes. When nominated

Protective Tariffs

for president, Polk had promised to serve only one term, so he did not run for reelection in 1848. Polk retired to his farm, but, worn out from his four years, contracted cholera and died in June 1849. See also: Bank of the United States; Jackson, Andrew.

FURTHERREADING Behrman, Carol H. James K. Polk. Minneapolis, Minn.: Lerner Publications, 2005. Bergeron, Paul H. The Presidency of James K. Polk. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1987. Rumsch, Breann. James K. Polk. Edina, Minn.: Abdo Publishing Company, 2009.

Protective Tariffs Taxes on goods imported into the United States, taxes that were also a prime source of revenue for the government. Revenue generated from tariff duties was the chief source of income for the federal government from the 1790s through the early twentieth century. However, because of their controversial nature, protective tariffs also heightened sectional differences. “[W]ithout revenues, a government can have no power,” wrote Alexander Hamilton. “That power which holds the purse–strings absolutely, must rule.” The nation’s first government, the Articles of Confederation, severely limited the central government’s power to raise money. However, the ratification of the Constitution in 1788 gave the federal government exclusive powers to coin money and impose tariffs. Congress passed the nation’s first tariff in 1789. It imposed a 5 percent

✪ 57

duty on all imported goods, together with a list of items that would be taxed at a higher rate. This mildly protective tariff was designed to prevent the new nation from being flooded by cheap British goods and at the same time to provide a source of revenue for the new government. Between 1789 and 1816, Congress revised the initial tariff’s duties more than two-dozen times, generating about 90 percent of the government’s revenue. Because the tariff was generally low and was designed for revenue, there was little controversy at the time. The War of 1812 (1812–1814) interrupted the tariff revenue stream. In 1816, Congress passed a completely new tariff, levying a series of 25 percent duties to encourage the growth of U.S. manufacturing in an attempt to replace imported British goods with domestically produced items. This tariff fit in with Henry Clay’s American System idea to protect infant industries from unfair foreign competition. HIGHER TARIFFS In 1819, falling agricultural prices in Europe triggered a financial panic that led to renewed support from Middle Atlantic and Western states for a higher tariff. Southern states, which relied on imports, opposed higher tariffs, while New England states split over the issue. With higher population growth in the Midwest and North, Congress was able to enact the Tariff of 1824 in spite of Southern opposition. This tariff levied rates of 35 percent on imported iron, wool, hemp, and cotton. The

M– P

58

✪

Protective Tariffs

federal Treasury had a surplus of funds, so the tariff was more to raise money for the government than to protect U.S. goods. “Tariff of Abominations” The next tariff, nicknamed the “Tariff of Abominations,” was enacted in 1828 to help Andrew Jackson (1829–1837) win the presidential election that fall. Jackson’s supporters hoped that such a high tariff would generate opposition to John Quincy Adams and lead to Jackson’s election, after which he would reduce the tariff to acceptable rates. The 1828 tariff raised to 50 percent the rate on manufactured goods coming into the country. After Jackson took office in 1829, however, he decided to keep some of the higher rates in an effort to help reduce the federal debt. Southern opposition quickly became loud and sustained. The high rates meant that the South had to spend more money to import manufactured goods that the region’s few industries did not produce. This in turn meant that consumers had to pay more for goods and, consequently, that cotton manufacturers would buy less cotton. As a whole, the South would lose money and its cotton would be worth less. In July 1832, Congress passed a tariff bill with lower rates but kept the high 1828 rates on manufactured cloth and iron. The South Carolina legislature then enacted a law nullifying the federal tariffs of 1828 and 1832 within the state borders, causing a confrontation with Jackson. The president stood firm against the state, which dropped its threat to secede from the United States. The new Tariff of 1833 instituted automatic

reductions in tariff levels between 1833 and 1842. Whig plans The Whig Party won the presidential election of 1840 and also controlled both houses of Congress. Whig leader Henry Clay finally saw a chance to enact legislation that would support his American System, but the new president, William Henry Harrison (1841), died a month into his presidency. His successor, President John Tyler (1841–1845), was a Virginian who vetoed many of Clay’s proposed laws, including a tariff designed to raise revenue that would be pumped into a national program of transportation improvements. Tyler, however, soon realized the need for additional revenue and signed into law a new tariff in 1842, which kept some rates above 20 percent. REDUCING TARIFFS Mississippian Robert Walker, President James K. Polk’s (1845–1849) secretary of the Treasury, influenced Congress to pass a new tariff in 1846. This tariff reduced rates to the minimum necessary to raise revenue. In essence, this tariff meant that Clay and the Whigs had no support to use tariff revenues to fund part of the American System. Yet the new tariff rates still brought in enough money so that Polk did not have to raise more funds to pay for the Mexican War (1846–1848). In 1857, Democrats in Congress lowered the tariff yet again, to 18 percent. By 1861, tariff revenues had been used to pay off most of the Mexican War debt, even with another economic downturn that began in 1857.

Railroads

HIGHER TARIFFS AGAIN Opponents of low tariffs blamed the government for the economic downturn because the low tariff was a free-trade bill that favored the South. The Republican Party changed the low tariff after the Southern states seceded from the Union at the beginning of the Civil War (1861– 1865). Led by Representative Justin Morrill, the Republican–dominated Congress passed a new tariff in the spring of 1861 that raised rates, and then Congress revised this tariff to raise rates even higher; by 1868, rates reached 49 percent on imported goods. Even with such a high tariff, the revenue generated only $75 mil-

✪ 59

lion per year during the Civil War, which, adjusted for inflation, was not much more than was collected with the lower tariffs of the 1850s. The Republican Party remained a champion of high tariffs after the war ended in 1865. See also: American System; Clay, Henry; Jackson, Andrew; Polk, James K.; Sectionalism.

FURTHERREADING Turney, Elaine C.P., and Cynthia C. Northrup, eds. Tariffs and Trade in U.S. History: An Encyclopedia. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2003. Available online. URL: http://www.taxanalysts.com/museum.

R–S Railroads Major form of transportation in the United States from the 1850s through 1916, when rail mileage peaked. Railroads transformed the United States into a modern nation with quick transportation to almost anywhere within the country. Railroads led to the decline of canals because they were much more efficient and could be built practically anywhere. EARLY RAILROADS IN ENGLAND The first railroads appeared in England early in the nineteenth century, when horse–drawn carts were pulled over a parallel set of wooden rails to help move iron ore from mines. The Scotsman James Watt invented the steam engine in the 1760s. Others ex-

R– perimented with applying the steam S engine to pull train cars. The earliest steam rail locomotive was built in 1804 by Englishmen Richard Trevithick and Andrew Vivian. The English were so protective of the steam engine that it became a crime to reveal the machine’s plans to other countries. THE FIRST AMERICAN RAILROADS Nevertheless, plans for the steam engine eventually found their way to the United States. In 1829, a steam engine owned by the Delaware and Hudson Canal made a successful 108–mile (174–km) trip on a track next to the canal. A year later, city officials in Charleston, South Carolina, purchased a new steam engine to use

60

✪

Railroads

on a railroad being constructed to run into the interior of the state. That same year, an engine that was named Tom Thumb chugged along the newly laid tracks of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. These first engines were tiny, prone to breakdown, and ran on wooden rails that could snap and cause accidents. Yet Americans became fascinated with this new technology, which could lead to riches for those who had invested wisely in new companies being formed to build railroads.

gers and freight. Railroad opponents spread false stories about this new form of transportation. Steam engines could explode, causing horri-fic loss of life. The noise steam engines emitted would scare horses and result in chaos wherever the engines went. Sparks from engine smokestacks would cause fires in adjacent farm fields, forests, and towns. High– speed rail travel could cause “concussion of the brain.” A school board in Ohio went so far as to call railroads “a device of Satan.”

THE GROWTH OF RAILROADS In spite of such stories, local rail companies collected money by either subscription or loan and began building the nation’s first railroads. By 1830, only 40 miles (64 km) of rail lines had been constructed. Ten years later, the mileage had grown to 2,808 (4,519 km). Rail lines began using wooden rails, and then improved them by adding a strip of iron along the top, making them harder to break. Rails made of iron soon followed, and then, later in the nineteenth century, iron was replaced by steel, which proved to be the strongest rail material. Private companies largely financed early railroads. State support was limited in the beginning The Lehigh Valley Railroad (1846–1976) was built to carry until the railroads proved anthracite coal across northern Pennsylvania, New that they could be profitJersey, and New York. Before the development of stronger engines, cables were used to haul cars up able. The national governsteep inclines. ment, in part because of the

OPPOSITION TO RAILROADS Some Americans initially opposed rail construction. Owners of canal companies, turnpikes, and stagecoach lines, for example, did not want more competition for passen-

Railroads

long struggle in Congress over whether to fund internal improvements, also hesitated to provide taxpayer funds to assist railroad construction. Government assistance did not come until 1850, when Senators Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois and William R. King of Alabama combined to push a bill through Congress that granted land to two north–south rail lines; the bill helped provide economic growth to the states bordering the Mississippi River. By 1850, there were 9,021 miles (14,518 km) of railroads in the United States. RAILROADS IN THE 1850S The decade preceding the Civil War (1861–1865) was a crucial one in the growth of the United States. Before rail construction west of the Allegheny Mountains, the states of the upper Midwest—Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin—were connected more to the South than the Northeast because steamboats on the Mississippi River and its tributaries carried goods north and south between New Orleans and Cincinnati and other Northern cities. However, as railroads inched across the mountains from Pennsylvania and New York, they tied these states more to the East than the South. Railroad travel was quicker than river travel and in the end was also cheaper. When the Civil War began in 1861, railroad growth was a key factor in uniting the North against the Confederate states. RAILROADS IN THE CIVIL WAR When the war began in 1861, there were 31,246 miles (50,286 km) of

✪ 61

track in the United States, 75 percent of it in the North. The war proved the value of rail transportation, which provided advancing Union armies with military supplies that would have been extremely difficult and slow by horse and wagon. Troops could be transported quickly to counter enemy moves, as happened several times, most notably in the fall of 1863 when more than 20,000 soldiers were moved by rail from northern Virginia to northern Alabama in only a few days. The war ruined Southern railways because Union troops destroyed enemy railroad lines as they advanced. THE TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILROAD On July 1, 1862, President Lincoln signed into law the Pacific Railroad Act. California had become a state in 1850 as settlers flocked to the West Coast in search of gold and cheap land. Talk began of a transcontinental railroad that would connect the West Coast with the Midwest. However, squabbling between Northern and Southern members of Congress over the proposed route failed to produce any results in the 1850s. With the South out of Congress because of the war, Republicans easily passed such forward–thinking legislation. This law specified the route from California to Nebraska. The newly created Central Pacific Railroad Company would start in Sacramento, California, and build eastward across the forbidding Sierra Madre. At the same time, the Union Pacific would start in Omaha, Nebraska, and lay track westward across the Great Plains and the

R– S

62

✪

Railroads

Railroads and Time Zones The rise of railroad transportation in the United States led to the adoption of standard time zones to avoid deadly collisions on busy rail lines. In the early United States, there were no standard time zones. Time was simply a matter of local decisions. Thus, it was noon whenever the sun was at its highest point in the sky. As a result, when reading old books and newspapers, it is sometimes impossible to determine the exact time an event took place. The United States finally adopted standard time zones on November 18, 1883. The man responsible for devising the time zones was Charles Dowd of Saratoga Springs, New York. He had designed a series of time zones (Eastern, Central, Mountain, Pacific) in 1870; his revised design of 1872 was the one adopted by the railroad industry.

Rocky Mountains. To help the two companies, the government provided generous loans and gifts of land along the route. Construction Begins Work started on the transcontinental railroad in early 1863, but the Civil War interfered with progress, and it was not until after the war ended that work continued. Track gangs of the Union Pacific encountered herds of buffalo and hostile Native Americans, while work gangs of the Central Pacific, made up primarily of Chinese immigrants, had to contend with heavy snows in the Sierra Madre.

On March 19, 1918, Congress enacted the Standard Time Act, which officially adopted the railroad time zones and gave authority to make any changes to the Interstate Commerce Commission. In 1966, the Department of Transportation assumed control of making any time zone changes. Observance of Daylight Savings Time began in April 1916 during World War I (1914–1918). Its use was inconsistent until the Uniform Time Act of 1966, which provided consistency to when Daylight Savings Time would begin and end. This law was amended in 1972 and 1986, making changes in the date for the start of Daylight Savings Time and giving some states leeway in observing it. All this was made possible by the steps that had been taken to improve railroad safety.

Success at Last The two companies finally came together just north of the Great Salt Lake in the Utah Territory, at Promontory Point on May 10, 1869. A golden spike was driven into the land to signify that East and West were now united by rail. The instant success of the new rail line started a race as other companies began constructing railroads across the West. The government encouraged construction by granting, between 1850 and 1871, more than 131 million acres of land to railroad companies. By 1870, there were 52,922 miles (85,170 km) of track in the United States.

Railroads

RAILROADS IN THE U.S. AFTER 1869 The building of so many miles of track by competing companies led to many problems and inventions. Before the Civil War, different rail companies would build different gauges of rail lines. The gauge was the distance from the inside of one rail to the inside of its partner. The standard gauge was 4 feet, 8.5 inches (1.4 m), although many Southern railroads were built at a 5–foot (1.5-m) gauge. It was not until the 1880s that the standard gauge was adopted across the country. As rail lines became busier, train crashes became more frequent, forcing railroad owners to figure out how to prevent collisions. After the telegraph was invented in 1844, it was used to warn stations down the line of oncoming traffic. Railroads devised complex time schedules so that passengers could plan trips via their lines. Competing rail lines traded their schedules when they shared track so that collisions could be avoided. Competition also led to rate wars that resulted in falling costs for transporting freight, although some lines tried fixing prices to prevent competition. In 1887, the federal government created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate prices and maintain lawful competition. Between 1880 and 1916, rail mileage in the U.S. increased from 93,267 (150,099 km) to 254,037 (408,833 km). Throughout this period, larger railroad companies absorbed smaller ones, buying them out and adding their track and rolling stock to increase the size of existing rail lines.

✪ 63

BENEFITS OF RAILROADS Expansion of the railroads enabled the U.S. economy to grow by reducing the time of travel and the cost of shipments from coast to coast. Passenger travel became possible throughout the United States at a much faster rate than by horse and wagon, canal, or steamboat. The U.S. railroad system became the envy of the world. Subsidiary rail lines snaked their way into every state, across rivers and mountains, and over plains. Throughout the country, most people lived within 25 miles (40 km) of a railroad. Rail travel made it possible for the average American to travel anywhere in the country at a reasonable price. During World War I (1914–1918) and World War II (1939–1945), U.S. railroads greatly aided the war effort by moving soldiers and supplies from coast to coast quickly and efficiently. However, the rise of the automobile, and later the trucking industry, led to the decline of the U.S. railroad system. Companies went out of business or sharply reduced their track mileage. Most surviving railroad companies resulted from of a series of mergers to avoid bankruptcy. Today, there are about 140,000 miles (225,308 km) of railroad in the United States. See also: Canals.

FURTHERREADING Meltzer, Milton. Hear That Train Whistle Blow! How the Railroad Changed the World. New York: Random House Books for Young Readers, 2005. Renehan, Edward J., Jr. The Transcontinental Railroad: The Gateway to the West. New York: Chelsea House, 2007.

R– S

64

✪

Secession, Right of

Secession, Right of The belief that a state can leave the United States with a decision by that state’s legislature. The right of secession is one of the most heated debates in U.S. history. The U.S. Constitution is silent on this issue. In the Preamble to the Constitution, there is a reference to people, not states: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union. . . .” Although the last clause in the Constitution specifies the number of original states needed to ratify the Constitution, there is nothing in the document that allows a state to reverse ratification. Questions concerning whether the United States is truly “one nation, indivisible” have risen since the early years of the Republic. FIRST ATTEMPTS In 1798, President John Adams (1797–1801) signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law. These laws placed restrictions on immigrants and attempted to limit criticism of the federal government. Representative James Madison wrote an opposition paper called the Virginia Resolution, while Vice President Thomas Jefferson secretly authored the Kentucky Resolution. (The papers are also known as the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves.) Madison wrote that the states could ignore federal laws that were repressive. Jefferson took Madison’s argument one step further. He noted that a state could nullify any federal laws that its legislature deemed unconstitutional. Because the Alien and Sedition Acts

were repealed soon after Jefferson’s (1801–1809) election as president, the issue died. A second attempt at secession took place during the War of 1812 (1812–1814). New England Federalists were angry over the war and its economic effect on their trade with other countries. Twenty–six delegates from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Vermont met at Hartford, Connecticut, in December 1814 to discuss the situation. Much of their dissatisfaction came from their hostility toward the administration of James Madison (1809–1817), as well as the war’s effect on the delegates’ prosperity. The delegates drew up a list of proposed amendments to the Constitution that would resolve their anger: • Limiting the president to a single term and preventing successive presidents from residing in the same state • Preventing naturalized citizens from holding any civil office • Requiring the assent of two–thirds of Congress to declare war • Requiring the assent of two–thirds of Congress to declare an embargo or otherwise interfere with commerce • Requiring a two–thirds vote of Congress to admit a new state to the Union • Counting only free citizens—and not three–fifths of the enslaved population—to determine the number of members in the House of Representatives. If Congress would not accept these amendments, many of the New Eng-

Sectionalism

land delegates suggested that their states secede from the Union and perhaps form a union with Canada. The end of the war prevented the convention from presenting its list to Congress. The lack of patriotism shown by the Hartford Convention also contributed to the demise of the Federalist Party. ANOTHER ATTEMPT AT SECESSION South Carolina led the next attempt at secession during the nullification crisis with the federal government that took place during Andrew Jackson’s (1829–1837) presidency. The leaders of South Carolina were very unhappy with the high tariff of 1828 and the 1832 tariff that followed it. In response to the high tariffs, South Carolina’s John C. Calhoun declared that each state could declare a federal law null within its borders if its legislature thought that law was unconstitutional. The state also threatened to secede if its demands were not met. Jackson, however, angrily denied that a state had the right to secede and threatened military force. South Carolina backed down, but in declaring the right of nullification and then of secession, the state’s leaders paved the way for Southern defenders of slavery to refine Calhoun’s ideas into more concrete action in the future. A few New England abolitionists advocated secession during the early years of the antislavery movement. They objected to the three– fifths compromise in the Constitution, which called for the counting of slaves as three–fifths of a person for the purpose of determining House membership. Thus, the slave states

✪ 65

had more representation in Congress than they deserved. In 1844, the New England Anti–Slavery Society voted 250–24 to secede from the slaveholding states. When South Carolina seceded from the Union after Abraham Lincoln’s (1861–1865) election in 1860, it cited the Constitution as justification, as did most of the other states that formed the new Confederate States of America. South Carolina cited “frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved right of the States” as the reason that the state was leaving the Union. The South Carolina legislature simply repealed its ratification of the Constitution and its amendments. See also: Nullification; Sectionalism.

FURTHERREADING Erwin, James L. Declarations of Independence: Encyclopedia of American Autonomous and Secessionist Movements. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2006. Hawes, Robert F. One Nation, Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution. Palo Alto, Calif.: Fultus Corporation, 2006.

Sectionalism Loyalty to one’s own region of the country rather than to the nation as a whole. In the United States, sectionalism was a major barrier to expansion, nationalism, and progress during the decades before the Civil War (1861– 1865). Ultimately, the Union victory in the Civil War reduced sectional influences and helped strengthen the country’s feeling of nationalism.

R– S

66

✪

Sectionalism

INCREASING DIFFERENCES Despite their differences, the 13 colonies were able to remain united to throw off British rule during the American Revolution (1775–1783). Once the United States was a functioning, independent country, however, sectional squabbling between the North and South began. The country’s first national capital was New York City, but then in 1790, it was moved to Philadelphia. The Southern states argued for a more central location for the capital. After some negotiation, Maryland and Virginia each gave up a portion of its territory for the new national capital, to be called Washington, which officially became the capital on November 17, 1800. SLAVERY Sectional differences were also readily apparent in the economic and agricultural development of the United States. In the North, farms were generally small because of hilly terrain; a shorter growing season meant that corn, wheat, oats, and other similar crops grew best. The uneven land in much of New England, coupled with a number of rivers, meant that mills and factories had a ready–made power supply of water. The growth of urban areas, a continuing stream of immigrants who were employed by the rising industrial sites, and the presence of resources such as coal, iron, and timber combined to create a steady growth of an industrial Northeast. In the South, however, a warmer growing climate meant that tobacco, cotton, and rice could be grown— three crops that were unable to be

cultivated successfully in the North. These crops were labor intensive and were suited to the use of slave labor to plant, maintain, and harvest. Ever since the first Africans arrived at Jamestown in 1619, the institution of black slavery grew steadily. This was especially true in the South, where the use of slaves enabled the growth of both large plantations and small farms. As a result, cotton and tobacco became the cash crops of an agricultural society in the states from Virginia sweeping southwest to Louisiana. The issue of slavery ultimately became the great threat to national unity that resulted in civil war. Slavery was a paradox in the United States because the Declaration of Independence (1776) declared 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.” Yet equality did not extend to African-American slaves, who were considered property, with few, if any, rights. A Threat to Unity By the 1820s, Northern states had abolished slavery, usually by gradual emancipation. Although African Americans in the North were considered second–class citizens, they at least were free and could hold jobs, get legally married, and own houses. By the time slavery was abolished in the North, abolitionists were gaining in strength and beginning to make themselves heard, arguing that the United States should not condone slavery because it was incompatible with the nation’s ideals. Early

Sectionalism

abolitionists were usually ignored, even in the North, because most Americans were racist and not ready to accept free blacks as equals. Northern fears During the 1840s and 1850s, however, more Northerners, fearful of the growing power of the South, began to listen to the abolitionists. Northern politicians argued that the South had undue power in Washington. Many of the presidents came from the South (Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson, for example), and because of the three–fifths clause in the Constitution, Southerners could claim greater representation in Congress, even though slaves were not citizens. A large number of Supreme Court justices were also from the South. Some Northern politicians began to say that slavery should not be allowed to expand into the territories. After the Compromise of 1820, which admitted Missouri to the United States as a slave state, attacks on slavery began to multiply. As a result, Southerners who did not even own slaves began to become vocal in defense of slavery. The slavery issue affected relations between North and South in a number of ways. When the Mexican War (1846–1848) started, a number of Northerners believed that the war was a plot by Southerners to acquire more territory so that slavery could spread farther westward. Most volunteer troops that strengthened the Regular Army were recruited in the South. The Two–Party System Slavery also affected the two–party political system that began during Andrew Jackson’s (1829–1837) presidency.

✪ 67

The Whig Party, a coalition of Jackson’s opponents, was not able to survive because of the divisive slavery issue. The Whigs were a combination of Southern planters and Northern industrialists who were opposed to Jackson. Southerners supported slavery, while Northerners grew increasingly opposed to the institution. Even though the Whigs won two presidential elections (1840 and 1848), the coalition broke up by the mid–1850s because of the differences over slavery. New Political Parties Sectionalism, in this case again the slavery issue, also led to the rise of smaller political parties, most of which had their base in the North. These parties included the Anti–Masonic Party (1831), Liberty Party (1839), FreeSoil Party (1848), and the American Party (also known as the KnowNothing Party, 1856). The Anti– Masons originated in New York and were opposed to secret societies; the other parties all had opposition to slavery in common. These small parties were one–issue parties that could not compete on a national level. When the Republican Party was organized in 1854, a large number of members of these smaller parties joined the new party, which won its first presidential election in 1860, sending Abraham Lincoln (1861– 1865) to the White House. CULTURAL SPLITS The North, thanks to the great number of immigrants, became much more culturally diverse than the South. Most migrants who traveled to lands that later became the Southern

R– S

68

✪

Sectionalism

states were Scots–Irish or English and shared a similar culture. In the North, however, people were much more culturally diverse. New York was originally settled by Dutch colonists. In Pennsylvania, founder William Penn envisioned a colony in which people from all over Europe were welcome. Swedish colonists had originally settled the lower Delaware River area and introduced the log cabin to the Americas. Penn’s colony brought in thousands of persecuted German settlers, such as the Amish and Mennonites. New Immigrants in the North A new wave of immigration began in the 1840s. Failed revolutions in Europe brought large numbers of Germans seeking political asylum or freedom. The Germans were followed by Irish whose native land was devastated by potato famines. Scandinavians from northern Europe also began arriving in the North, seeking new beginnings in the opportunities that the nation offered to them. By the time these immigrants began pouring into the United States, the transportation revolution that began with the rise of the steamboat in the 1810s and the canal boom of the 1820s–1830s was in full swing. Early settlers of the Northwest Territory (the future states of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota) were slowed by the mountains. Once the Erie Canal opened in 1825, a new, easier route was suddenly available from New York to Lake Erie, and from there, by water to the growing cities of Cleveland and Detroit. Settlers could now move quickly

into the interior, and new states were soon admitted to the Union. Importance of the Rails As railroads began to grow in the 1850s, they, too, linked the West to the North economically. Prior to the railroads, much of the agricultural harvest in the Western states, together with manufactured goods, went by water south on the Mississippi River to New Orleans and other Southern ports. During this period, Western politicians often voted along with Southern politicians, presenting a formidable voting block in opposition to Northern interests. By the late 1850s, as the West became closely tied to the North, and railroads and canals carried Western goods to New York and other Northern ports, Western politicians were beginning to work more closely with their counterparts in the Northeast. Social Change Another indicator of the more culturally diverse North was its role during the many reform movements that began in the decades before the Civil War. A temperance movement began in New England in opposition to the heavy use of alcohol. In 1826, a national temperance society was formed in Boston, and in 1851, the state of Maine passed a prohibition law, forbidding the manufacture or use of alcoholic beverages. Reform of public schools began in Massachusetts in the 1830s through the efforts of the education reformer Horace Mann. Prison reform also began in the North, as did reform for the mentally insane. The women’s suffrage movement also began in the North, when a group of independent

Sectionalism

women gathered together at Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848. RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES A wave of religious ideas and reform began in the United States during the early nineteenth century. Called the Second Great Awakening, this wave of religious fervor challenged the traditional church organizations and ideas. Although the Second Great Awakening eventually swept across the entire nation, significant portions of it began in the North, another indicator of the increasing sectionalism between North and South. Many American Protestants had believed in predestination, the Christian belief that God had already decided on the fate of each person before birth. A new generation of evangelical ministers preached the doctrine of free will, that each person controlled his or her own destiny. Many such ministers held outdoor revival meetings, attracted thousands of listeners, and baptized thousands of new believers. The Second Great Awakening also spawned a number of new religious groups. These all began in the North. This area saw the origins of the Mormons with Joseph Smith in the 1820 and the Millerites in the 1840s, whose followers eventually became the Seventh Day Adventists. Looking for a Perfect Life A number of utopian communities also sprang up during the Second Great Awakening. Founders of these different communities all had their own ideas about how people could best live together and be economically self–sufficient. Such communities

✪ 69

included Robert Dale Owen’s New Harmony, Indiana; John H. Noyes and his Oneida Community in New York State; George Rapp, who founded Harmony, Pennsylvania, and Harmony, Indiana, then Economy, Pennsylvania. These communities all sprang up in the North. The South’s slave system and culturally similar society could never have spawned such organizations. Mistaken Views Sectionalism therefore grew in both the North and South. To make matters worse, each section had a mistaken impression of the other. Southerners looked at the North and saw only abolitionists, industrialists who owned factories in which workers endured horrible conditions, runaway slaves, and religious upheaval. Northerners saw the South as ruled by an aristocracy who owned large plantations that used slave labor to grow cotton and tobacco. To Northerners, the South was a backward, illiterate section of the country that was trying to maintain political control of the country by expanding slavery to create more slave states. When Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin appeared in the early 1850s, it proved to be a runaway best seller in the North, bolstering that region’s view of the South. Many readers, however, missed Stowe’s point that the evil Simon Legree was originally from the North. The sectional crisis in the United States was indeed divisive in the decades before the Civil War. Most of the sectional problems revolved around the slavery issue. Once the war settled that issue, ending slavery,

R– S

70

✪

Sectionalism

the nation would become more united and less sectional. See also: Compromise of 1820; Protective Tariffs; Slavery.

FURTHERREADING Imbriaco, Alison. Causes of the Civil War. Available online. URL: http://www.MyReportLinks.com. 2004. Stampp, Kenneth M. The Causes of the Civil War. New York: Touchstone Books, 1992.

Slavery A system in which people are owned by others and in which those enslaved do not have the freedom to leave. The system of African American bondage practiced in the United States was the most divisive factor in the development of the nation. Indeed, the very idea of slavery was directly opposed to both the Declaration of Independence (“all men are created equal”) and the U.S. Constitution (“We the people”). Between the 1840s and 1860s, slavery was the principal issue debated in Congress. SLAVERY IN EARLY AMERICA The first African slaves were brought to America in 1619, and by the time of the American Revolution (1775– 1783), slavery was firmly established in all the colonies. However, slavery in the North was much more limited than in the South. The rising cost of each slave meant that slavery was financially more profitable on larger farms and plantations, which generally did not exist in the North. Farms were smaller there, and those slaves living in the North usually worked as field hands, domestic servants, and laborers in industry. In the South,

labor-intensive crops such as tobacco, rice, sugar, and cotton were ideal for the spread of slavery. Not all African Americans were slaves. By the time of the American Revolution, a class of free blacks was established in most colonies. Although free blacks had far fewer rights than whites and were limited in what they could do for a living, where they could live, and whom they could marry (interracial marriages were illegal), slaves had even fewer rights, if any at all. When they were brought from Africa, slaves were packed in very cramped spaces on slave ships; the death rate during the perilous voyage across the Atlantic was high. Upon arriving in America, the captives’ African names were stripped, and they were assigned other names that were easier for English speakers to pronounce. Slaves bought by a master became property. The master could allow slaves a few limited rights, but there was no common method of allocating rights. A slave family could be broken up and sold to different masters. It was illegal to teach slaves to read and write, and a slave could not carry a weapon. SLAVERY IN THE CONSTITUTION Several members of the Constitutional Convention wanted to abolish slavery because it conflicted with the nation’s ideals, but delegates from South Carolina and Georgia threatened to boycott any further discussion if slavery was abolished. There were also many arguments regarding the counting of slaves in regard to representation in Congress. The

Slavery

number of members in the House of Representatives from each state was based on each state’s population. Northerners believed that because slaves were property they did not count for representation. Southerners thought otherwise, but in the end, a compromise was reached in which each slave would count as three– fifths of a person for representation. EXPANSION OF SLAVERY The first president, George Washington (1789–1797), though a slaveholder himself, thought that slavery

✪ 71

would die out naturally. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 prohibited slavery in the new territories in that region, and many Southern states had cut their import of slaves as the price of cotton fell. That trend reversed itself in 1793, however, when Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, a simple machine that separated the seeds from cotton fibers, a slow and tedious process that was previously done by hand. Suddenly, one slave with a cotton gin could clean 50 times more cotton than a slave doing it by hand. As a result, cotton planting exploded

Eli Whitney’s (1765–1825) cotton gin revolutionized the cotton industry, making cotton the South’s main cash crop and slaves more valuable, as many more were needed for planting.

72

✪

Slavery

across the lower South—Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. By 1800, the South was producing 17 million pounds of cotton, sending part of it to New England’s textile mills and exporting much more to Europe. Slaves themselves suddenly became more valuable. A slave who sold for $500–$700 in Virginia now could bring $1,600 in Mississippi. The number of slaves increased across the South. In 1800, there were slightly more than 1 million enslaved African Americans in the United States. By 1820, that number increased to 1.7 million, and by 1830, to 2.3 million. In the North, slavery withered and died. Slavery’s unprofitability led to the gradual emancipation, or ending, of the institution in Northern states.

derground Railroad was not a train or even a formal organization, but a loose association of antislavery people who gave assistance to escaped slaves. Slaves who managed to escape their masters used the North Star to make their way north, hiding by day and cautiously traveling by night. Once in a free state, escaped slaves would locate people sympathetic to their plight. These people provided food and clothes as well as safe places to hide. The Underground Railroad had “station masters” who moved escaped slaves north, station by station, or place by place. Many slaves headed farther north to Canada, which, as a part of the British Empire, had abolished slavery and was a safe haven for escaped slaves. Sympathizers in the South risked imprisonment and beatings if they offered to help escaped slaves.

THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT During the later eighteenth century, an abolition movement began to rise. Abolitionists wanted an immediate end to slavery in the United States. Their ranks included Quakers, free blacks, escaped slaves such as Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman, social reformers, and educators. Abolitionist societies sprang up throughout the North and Midwest, but on the whole, the abolition message was not popular because most Americans were racist and believed that blacks were inferior. Many white Americans were afraid that abolition might lead to equal rights for blacks, as well as competition for jobs.

SOUTHERN DEFENSE OF SLAVERY As slavery grew across the South, the region developed a defensive attitude when slavery was attacked. Supporters presented slavery as a benevolent institution in which slaves had all their needs taken care of by kind masters. Because blacks were allegedly inferior, this was the best way in which they could live. Without order, blacks would attack white society. Supporters of this view pointed to slave revolts such as the 1822 plan by Denmark Vesey in South Carolina and the bloody rampage by Nat Turner in Virginia in 1831.

THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD The 1830s also saw the rise of the Underground Railroad to help escaped slaves make their way north. The Un-

DEBATE OVER SLAVERY, 1840S–1850S The acquisition of the Republic of Texas in 1845, followed by the huge territorial gain as a result of the Mexican War (1846–1848), further

Slavery

intensified the debate over slavery. Many Northerners believed that the war with Mexico was nothing more than a power grab by slavery supporters to acquire more territory so that slavery could expand. Indeed, Southerners wanted the island of Cuba, other Caribbean islands, and Central America as potential sites for the expansion of slavery. A set of five bills that became known as the Compromise of 1850 allowed Congress to once again try to resolve the conflict over slavery. California was admitted as a free state, the slave trade was abolished in the District of Columbia, the Utah and New Mexico territories were organized and allowed to make their own decisions on slavery, and a tough new Fugitive Slave Law was enacted. Northern states reacted to this last item by passing personal liberty laws designed to make catching fugitive slaves much more difficult. The slavery issue intensified during the 1850s as sectionalism became worse. Many churches, among them the Baptist and Methodist, split into Northern and Southern branches over the slavery argument. In Congress, the slavery debate reached new passions, especially after the deaths of the great compromisers—Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, and Daniel Webster—in the early 1850s. A new generation of leaders on both sides of the issue grabbed headlines with their passionate stances on slavery. Anger reached its height with the brutal beating of Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts by House member Preston Brooks of South Carolina on May 22, 1856, the result of an insult to a fellow House

✪ 73

member that Sumner had included in a speech. Other events in the 1850s further split North and South apart. Harriet Beecher Stowe published Uncle Tom’s Cabin in the early 1850s, a novel that graphically depicted the horrors of slavery, influencing thousands of readers. The Kansas– Nebraska Act of 1854 repealed the Missouri Compromise and allowed both the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to each decide the slavery issue. The resulting uproar across the North led to bloody fighting in Kansas as both North and South sent armed settlers into Kansas to force the issue in their favor. FORMATION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY A new political party formed in response to the uproar across the nation. The Republican Party was essentially an antislavery organization that gathered together elements of smaller parties such as the FreeSoil Party and the declining Whig Party. The party opposed the extension of slavery in the Western territories. It acknowledged, however, that it would not interfere in those states where slavery already existed. The Republicans ran their first presidential candidate in 1856, and although John C. Fremont lost, he received more than 1.3 million votes. THE END OF SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES In an attempt to end the controversy over slavery, the Supreme Court declared in its Dred Scott decision (1857) that blacks were not U.S. citizens and had no right to sue in court. Two years later, radical abolitionist

R– S

74

✪

Slavery

John Brown attacked the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia, and convinced Southerners that there was a widespread conspiracy in the North to do away with slavery. The final straw was Republican Abraham Lincoln’s (1861–1865) victory in the 1860 presidential election. South Carolina seceded from the Union a month later, followed by the other states of the Deep South. The slavery issue had finally split the nation. It took four years of bloody Civil War (1861–1865) and 600,000 deaths to resolve the issue. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution (1865) finally abolished slavery in the United States. See also: Adams, John Quincy; Compromise of 1820; Compromise of 1850.

FURTHERREADING Horton, James O., and Lois E. Horton. Slavery and the Making of America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Rodriguez, Junius P., ed. Slavery in the United States: A Social, Political, and Historical Encyclopedia. 2 vol. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC–CLIO, 2007.

States’ Rights Idea that the U.S. Constitution granted certain rights and political powers to individual states in their relation to the federal government. Arguments about the rights that states possess have existed since the ratification of the Constitution in 1788. It is an issue that is still debated across the nation. The Constitution specifies the powers of the president, Congress,

and Supreme Court. In the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment states: “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.” At issue is exactly what powers the Constitution does give to the federal government and to the states. The answer to this vexing question depends on how strictly or loosely one interprets the Constitution. INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION Jeffersonian Republicans (the Democratic–Republican Party) initially interpreted the Constitution very strictly. In response to the Federalist–sponsored Alien and Sedition Acts, Democratic Republicans Thomas Jefferson and James Madison secretly authored the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (or Resolves), which criticized the acts as unconstitutional. These pamphlets also argued that the United States was simply a contract between individual states that gave the central government limited powers. State legislatures could decide if and when the federal government went too far in exerting its power. At that point, the states could nullify, or invalidate, any federal laws they felt were unconstitutional. QUESTIONS OF NULLIFICATION AND SECESSION John C. Calhoun later expounded upon the nullification doctrine during South Carolina’s attempt to nullify the federal tariffs of 1828

States’ Rights

✪ 75

Code Words and Equal Rights Although the Civil War resulted in a stronger federal government and a sharp decline in individual states’ rights, the states’ rights theory has never died out completely. Southern states continued to rely on court cases to deny equal rights to African Americans—until President Lyndon B. Johnson’s (1963–1969) civil rights cases struck down opinions opposed to equal rights. The Supreme Court ruled in multiple cases (in the 1883 Civil Rights Cases and in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson) that equal protection clauses only pertain to actions taken by states, not by individuals, effectively condoning separate but equal laws passed by many states.

and 1832. Calhoun argued that states indeed had a right to nullify federal laws they considered unconstitutional, but only after calling for a national convention of states to do so. If the federal government tried to coerce a state into obeying such “unconstitutional” laws, then a state had the right to secede from the Union. The right of secession had its first test near the end of the War of 1812 (1812–1814), when Federalists from New England states met in Hartford, Connecticut, to discuss options available to them. Many New Englanders had opposed the war because it disrupted foreign trade that was vital to their economy. The convention decided to seek changes in the Constitution to protect their interests. If such changes were not

As desegregation began after World War II (1939–1945), a splinter group from the Democratic Party, the Dixiecrats, or “States’ Rights Party,” formed to oppose equal rights for African Americans. In fact, the term states’ rights became a code word in the South for the defense of segregation. The states’ rights theory has been taken up by a variety of other groups in recent years. When the federal government decided to save money by closing National Guard military bases around the country, for example, several states sued the government because of the states’ rights issue of whether or not the bases were under the jurisdiction of the state.

made, then they would threaten to secede.

R– After S

Constitutionally protected? the Mexican War (1846–1848), the states’ rights controversy continued to grow as the slavery question took center stage in U.S. politics. Calhoun argued that because slaves were described as property in the Constitution the right to own slaves was constitutionally protected and could not be legislated against by either Congress or any state. Defenders of slavery protested against any congressional attempts to limit slavery. They claimed that each state had the right to legislate their own laws pertaining to slavery. The federal government could not make any laws that went against the protection or expansion of slavery.

76

✪

States’ Rights

A federal power? On the other hand, antislavery people also cited the Constitution to attack slavery. The federal government had the right to pass laws pertaining to the presence of slavery in territories, as Congress had done with the Northwest Ordinance in 1787 and with the Missouri Compromise in 1820. When the government passed a tough Fugitive Slave Law in 1850, many Northern states used their own version of states’ rights by passing personal liberty laws that prohibited state authorities from enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law. The question of states’ rights was one of the primary causes of the Civil War (1861–1865). Although the war decided the slavery issue, the concept of states’ rights continued to live on throughout U.S. history. It became especially prominent during the fight for civil rights in the last half of the twentieth century. See also: Calhoun, John C.; Nullification Crisis; Protective Tariffs; Secession, Right of.

FURTHERREADING Drake, Frederick D., and Lynn R. Nelson, eds. States’ Rights and American Federalism: A Documentary History. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1999. McDonald, Forrest. States’ Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776–1876. Reprint. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2002.

Steamboats Steam–powered engines on ships that resulted in a revolution in U.S. travel in the 1810s. Before the use of steam to power a ship’s engine, all

ships were powered by sails or people. Sail–powered ships were at the mercy of water currents and wind strength. Flatboats, rafts, and keelboats were powered by oar, pole, or rudder, all needing human strength to move. Steam liberated a ship from relying strictly on people or wind. EARLY DEVELOPMENT The first successful steamboat has been attributed to the genius of Robert Fulton, an artist and engineer whose steamboat The North River Steamer (often erroneously called Clermont) steamed up the Hudson River from New York City to Albany, the capital of New York State, in August 1807. Fulton used a James Watt steam engine imported from England. He mounted the engine on a long, narrow wooden boat that was 133 feet (40.5 m) long and attached it to a paddlewheel mounted amidships. During the trip to Albany, the steamer managed a speed of 6 miles (9 km) per hour. Within a couple of years, steamboats became popular and began carrying a larger and larger percentage of goods up New York rivers. The state legislature granted a monopoly to one steamboat company to control steamboat use on state waterways. Legal wrangling soon began as competing companies in adjoining states tried to cross into New York water. Eventually one case made its way to the Supreme Court. Aaron Ogden, a New York steamboat owner, sued Thomas Gibbons for operating a steamboat illegally in New York. Gibbons’s lawyer was the renowned Daniel Webster. In

Steamboats

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the Court sided with Gibbons and ruled that the commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution included transportation. Because the federal government could regulate commerce, the Court declared that steamship monopolies were illegal. The result was an explosion of competition that aided the commercial growth of the United States. In 1811, a steamboat was launched at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This was another Fulton–designed boat that made its way south along the Ohio River to the Mississippi River, and then on to New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico. The Mississippi River and its tributaries proved to be challenges for the steamboat trade. Eastern rivers generally had stronger currents and fewer obstacles. Fulton’s boats in the East had narrow bows and a narrow length, rode deeper in the water, and had a low–pressure engine that was attached to paddlewheels usually mounted on the middle of the boat. A growing industry The Mississippi was a hazardous river for such boats. It often shifted channels during floods, contained many snags and floating trees, and had sandbars and shallow water in several spots. To counter such obstacles, steamboat builders designed a vessel that had a rounded prow and needed as little as 4 feet (1 m) of water to move. The boilers were placed on deck rather than in the hold, and the paddlewheels were attached to the rear of the boat. Such boats were much wider than Eastern models and, in time, became floating palaces. Passenger steamers usually had at least

✪ 77

two or three deck levels for higherpaying passengers; folks with less money slept in the open on the main deck and took their chances with the weather. During the heyday of Mississippi steamers, from the late 1840s until 1861, larger boats included entertainment such as stage shows and gambling. Cargo steamers could often accommodate more than 1,000 tons (907 metric tons) of goods. Larger boats with bigger engines could often achieve speeds of 20 miles (32 km) per hour. Growth of steam power The advent of steam–powered vessels revolutionized water transportation in the United States. With the opening of New York’s Erie Canal in 1825, steamers soon appeared on the Great Lakes, taking cargo and passengers across the lakes, delivering goods and passengers to canal ports for shipment. Oceangoing steamers appeared in the 1840s; the first steamer made a transatlantic voyage to Great Britain in 1847. Thereafter, regular mail and passenger service began between the United States and Europe. A number of problems were associated with steamboats. If not properly maintained or if pushed too fast, boilers could and did explode, destroying the steamer and causing loss of life. Collisions on rivers were far too common, especially in fog or bad weather. Sparks from the wood or coal used for fuel sometimes started fires that quickly spread through the wooden boats. In spite of such dangers, steamboats flourished until the Civil War (1861–1865), being used all across

R– S

78

✪

Steamboats

the nation, even on the West Coast. The damage caused during the war, together with the surge of postwar railroad building, resulted in steamboats’ losing popularity. Through the late 1800s and early 1900s, only some were still used for passenger service.

See also: Canals; Railroads.

FURTHERREADING Ewen, William H. Days of the Steamboats. New York: Parents’ Magazine, 1967. Zimmerman, Karl. Steamboats. Honesdale, Pa.: Boyds Mills Press, 2007.

T–V Tariffs See: Protective Tariffs.

Taylor, Zachary (1784–1850) Twelfth president of the United States. Although a Southerner born in Virginia, Taylor was a nationalist who overcame his sectional differences, or feelings of loyalty to his home region, for the good of the country. EARLY CAREER In command at the U.S.-Mexican border in 1846, Taylor’s force defeated a Mexican army that had crossed the Rio Grande into Texas, which had been annexed by the U.S. in 1845. His force won the battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma on May 8 and 9 of that year. Congress then declared war on Mexico. Early in the Mexican– American War (1846–1848), Taylor assembled an army and advanced into northern Mexico, capturing the city of Monterrey after a tough battle (September). Taylor then forged an eight–week armistice that made President James K. Polk (1845–1849) furious. Jealous over Taylor’s rising popularity, Polk ordered most of Taylor’s troops to join with General

Winfield Scott for his campaign against Mexico City. Nonetheless, Taylor won yet another victory at Buena Vista (February 23, 1847) over a much larger Mexican army. PRESIDENCY The Whig Party chose Taylor as its presidential candidate in the election of 1848, which was the first in which male voters in all states cast their ballots on the same day. Taylor won the election, earning 163 electoral votes over Democrat Lewis Cass’s 127. The campaign’s overarching theme was the divisive slavery issue. Although Taylor himself owned more than 100 slaves on his Louisiana plantation, he personally opposed the extension of slavery but remained uncommitted during the campaign. Once in office, Taylor was faced with the question of admitting California as a state. The discovery of gold there in 1848 resulted in a rush of prospectors that raised the territory’s population enough to be considered for admission as a state. Congress began extensive and often mean– spirited debates over whether California would be a slave or a free state to maintain the sectional equality balance in Congress.

Trail of Tears

As leaders began to devise a compromise, Taylor came out in opposition. Taylor recommended that both California and New Mexico draft state constitutions and apply directly for admission, bypassing the territory stage. Southern leaders were furious, knowing full well that both future states would vote to deny slavery. In February 1850, a group of Southern leaders met with the president and threatened to secede from the Union. Taylor informed them that if they continued their course of action, he would personally lead the American army to put down any such rebellion against the United States. Any person taken prisoner “he would hang . . . with less reluctance than he had hanged deserters and spies in Mexico.” Taylor did not live to see the Compromise of 1850 bill come to his desk. After attending Independence Day ceremonies on a very hot day, he became seriously ill and died on July 9, 1850. He was succeeded in office by Vice President Millard Fillmore (1850–1853). Later, physicians theorized that the cause of Taylor’s death was acute gastroenteritis, an inflammation of the stomach and intestinal tract. Allegations that Taylor was poisoned persisted until 1991, when Taylor’s closest relatives allowed his body to be disinterred to retrieve samples for analysis. Tests showed that although traces of arsenic were found they were not high enough for poisoning to have occurred. See also: Compromise of 1850.

✪ 79

FURTHERREADING Bauer, Karl J. Zachary Taylor: Soldier, Planter, Statesman of the Old Southwest. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1985. Roberts, Jeremy. Zachary Taylor. Minneapolis, Minn.: Lerner Publications, 2005.

Texas See: Compromise of 1850; Polk, James K.; Taylor, Zachary.

Trail of Tears Name applied to the paths taken by the Cherokee when forced to leave their homeland in the southern United States for a district in what is today Oklahoma. The tribe was removed from its land as a result of the Indian Removal Act, signed into law by President Andrew Jackson (1829– 1837) in May 1830. EARLY CHEROKEE RELATIONS WITH UNITED STATES The Cherokee were considered one of the “Five Civilized Tribes” of Native Americans living in the southern United States. Between 1684 and 1819, the Cherokee signed 28 treaties, hoping to give up portions of their ancestral homes to save the core of their land. Cherokee land was centered in the area where the borders of North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia came together, the area now called the Great Smoky Mountains. During the French and Indian War (1754–1763), the Cherokee sided with the French, who lost the war. The tribe then switched allegiance to the British during the American Revolution (1775–1783).

T– V

80

✪

Trail of Tears

Robert Lindneux (1871–1970) was an artist of the American West. His well-known “Trail of Tears” painting shows the misery that took place when the Cherokee tribe was forced from its homeland and sent to modern-day Oklahoma.

During the early nineteenth century, the Cherokee continued on their path of acquiring the customs of white civilization. Many Cherokee families turned to farming, purchased slaves, and began growing cotton. The Cherokee had no written laws before 1808, but then the tribe began compiling their oral laws. In 1821, a member of the tribe completed work on a Cherokee written alphabet, the first ever for the Cherokee. Six years later, the tribe adopted a written constitution, modeled on the U.S. Constitution. The tribe was clearly settling down and becoming “civilized” in the eyes of their white neighbors.

INDIAN REMOVAL ACT The Indian Removal Act of 1830 gave President Andrew Jackson the power to deal with Native American tribes, exchange their land for property west of the Mississippi, and remove the native peoples from American states. Jackson soon began applying pressure on the tribes to sell their land to the government and move across the Mississippi River to present–day Oklahoma. Jackson’s agents used a “divide and conquer” strategy with the Cherokee. Their chief, John Ross, did not wish to move his people from their ancestral land in the South. There was

Trail of Tears

a minority of the tribe, called the Treaty Party, who sided with the government because they could see that they would not be able to keep their land much longer. Led by Major Ridge, the members of this group met with government agents and agreed to move west. The U.S. Senate ratified the Treaty of New Echota in 1836, paving the way for the removal of the Cherokee. The treaty stipulated the payment of $5 million to the Cherokee if they moved within two years. Ross had been away when the vote was taken and, though angry, knew that he could do nothing to reverse the situation. CHEROKEE REMOVAL As the tribal members prepared to leave their homes, the state of Georgia intensified efforts to drive the native people out. Many Cherokee families were forced to enroll for removal and quickly lost their homes. In addition, whiskey traders invaded Cherokee Territory and sold alcohol, once forbidden to the tribe, to thousands of willing buyers. General John E. Wool, the soldier in charge of supervising the removal, was disgusted and resigned his post in 1837. He wrote, The whole scene since I have been in this country has been nothing but a heartrending one. If I could, and I could not do them a greater kindness, I would remove every Indian tomorrow beyond the reach of white men, who, like vultures, are watching, ready to pounce upon their prey and strip them of everything they

✪ 81

have or expect from the Government of the United States. With an outpouring of support for the Cherokee by sympathizers across the country, General Winfield Scott, who replaced Wool, sincerely attempted to remove the Cherokee with as much leniency as he could. Scott warned his soldiers to treat the Cherokee fairly, but many soldiers ignored his order and made the already bad situation worse. In May and June 1838, soldiers rounded up about 3,000 Cherokee, placing them in temporary camps prior to the move. Moving West The proposed route of the move westward went down the Tennessee River to its mouth, then south along the Mississippi River to the Arkansas River, which the Cherokee would follow to their new home. The trip covered 1,000 miles (1,609 km). The Cherokee had the misfortune to leave during the worst summer drought in 10 years. Thanks to this hot, dry weather, and the cheating from contractors who were supposed to provide food and supplies along the way, only 1,813 Cherokee arrived in Oklahoma. Most of those who left that summer died along the way, but some had run away and returned home. Given the high number of deaths during this fi rst trek, General Scott decided to wait until late summer to move any more of the Cherokee. The remaining Cherokee were rounded up in preparation for their enforced removal. Divided into 13 groups of 1,000 people each, they left their homeland between August 28 and December 5, 1838. Chief Ross

T– V

Trail of Tears

Untold thousands of Native Americans died as they were forced to move from their homelands in the eastern United States to lands west of the Mississippi River. The federal government did little to ensure the survival of the native people as they trekked westward on rough roads with little protection from the weather and inadequate supplies.

Trail of Tears

had been given permission to supervise the preparations for these groups, a process a relieved General Scott was only too happy to give up. Poor preparations The route that the major groups of Cherokee followed was known as the Trail of Tears because of the deaths and heartache associated with the journey. The U.S. government managed the tribe’s move poorly. Transportation arrangements were inadequate and not enough money had been budgeted for the process. Because of Georgia’s interference with the tribe’s preparations, many Cherokee had been forced out of their homes with only the clothes on their backs. They were destitute and starving, but the Cherokee were forced to move west. A soldier who participated in the exodus wrote the following: The trail of the exiles was a trail of death. . . . They had to sleep in the wagons and on the ground without fire. And I have known as many as twenty–two of them to die in one night of pneumonia due to ill treatment, cold, and exposure. Bodies were buried in shallow graves along the route. The casualties included Chief Ross’s wife, who had given her only blanket to a sick child. At least 4,000 Cherokee—and perhaps as many as 8,000—died en route to their new home in Oklahoma. Yet, President Martin Van Buren’s (1837–1841) secretary of war, Joel Poinsett, reported that the removal was ably and judiciously carried into effect . . . in every instance

✪ 83

with promptness and praiseworthy humanity. . . . It will always be gratifying to reflect that this had been effected, not only without violence, but with every proper regard for the feelings and interests of that people. Poinsett’s report, and indeed the Van Buren administration, was severely criticized for its inhuman treatment of native people during the removal process. The removal of the Cherokee occurred at a time of rising American nationalism. President Jackson’s popularity reflected the racism then prevalent in American society. Native Americans were not considered equals of the whites, and in spite of criticism about the removal, most people agreed that the Native Americans were an obstacle to the growth of the United States. Their removal west of the Mississippi River only delayed the day when even more settlers would desire their land and demand an end to the Indian Territory, which eventually became the state of Oklahoma in 1907. See also: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831); Worcester v. Georgia (1832); Indian Removal Act.

FURTHERREADING Elish, Dan. The Trail of Tears: The Story of the Cherokee Removal. New York: Benchmark Books, 2002. Perdue, Theda, and Michael Green. The Cherokee Removal–A Brief History with Documents. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995.

Transportation See: Canals; Railroads; Steamboats.

T– V

84

✪

Tyler, John (1790–1862)

Tyler, John (1790–1862) Tenth president of the United States. John Tyler (1841–1845), a Virginia native and a Jeffersonian Republican, was a staunch defender of states’ rights—the idea that states had been granted certain powers by the U.S. Constitution. Late in his presidency, Tyler showed a sense of nationalism when he strongly supported the annexation of Texas in 1845. In 1840, the Whig presidential nominee, William Henry Harrison, selected Tyler to be his vice-presidential running mate to help win Southern votes. Harrison, a war hero famous for his victory at the 1811 Battle of Tippecanoe, campaigned under the slogan “Tippecanoe and Tyler, too” and easily won the 1840 election. Harrison was sworn into office on March 4, 1841, and died in office a month later, after getting pneumonia. Tyler was unexpectedly thrust into the nation’s highest office, becoming the first vice president to succeed to the presidency upon the death of the president. The Constitution, however, was unclear about such a situation. Was Tyler simply an acting president with the responsibilities of the president, or a full–fledged president? Tyler decided he was the president. He even returned unopened all mail addressed to him as “acting president.” When Tyler vetoed legislation for a new national bank, he angered the Whig Party, who quickly became vocal critics of “His Accidency.” Tyler then vetoed a second bill as well. To display their opposition to Tyler’s vetoes, his cabinet resigned in protest.

Tyler became a president without a party. In 1842, Secretary of State Daniel Webster secured a treaty, later called the Webster–Ashburton Treaty, which defined the northern boundary of Maine. Just before the end of his presidency, Tyler signed a joint resolution of Congress that annexed the Republic of Texas, something his successor, James K. Polk (1845– 1849), strongly supported. Tyler retired to his Virginia plantation but came out of retirement briefly to become a member of the Provisional Confederate Congress. He died early in 1862 before the Congress opened.

FURTHERREADING Doutrich, Paul E. Shapers of the Great Debate on Jacksonian Democracy. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2004. Walker, Jane C. John Tyler: A President of Firsts. Granville, Ohio: McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, 2001.

Van Buren, Martin (1782–1862) Eighth president of the United States and former New York politician who had worked hard to ensure the success of Andrew Jackson’s (1829– 1837) presidential aspirations and to help create the Democratic Party. Van Buren (1837–1841) then succeeded Jackson as president. Nicknamed the “Little Magician” and the “Red Fox of Kinderhook” (the name of the New York town where he was born), Van Buren was an excellent organizer and administrator.

Van Buren, Martin (1782–1862)

POLITICAL CAREER Elected a U.S. senator in 1821, Van Buren went to Washington, D.C. He quickly realized that the nation’s capital was a disorganized maze of competing politicians without any strictly organized political parties, a remnant of President James Monroe’s “Era of Good Feelings”—during which there was only one political party in the United States. During the election of 1824, Van Buren supported William H. Crawford, who ultimately lost to John Quincy Adams (1825–1829). Van Buren strongly opposed Adams’s programs. Soon after the election, Van Buren quietly went about organizing the party for the 1828 election, in which he worked tirelessly for Andrew Jackson. Van Buren hoped to unite Southern votes with those of New York and other Northern states and forge a national coalition to support Jackson. The New Yorker’s grassroots effort across the nation ensured a sweeping 1828 win for Jackson and marked the beginning of the modern Democratic Party. Jackson made sure that Van Buren was rewarded for his work. He appointed Van Buren secretary of state, a post he held until he resigned in 1831. During his service in the State Department, Van Buren remained loyal to Jackson and often opposed Vice President John C. Calhoun, who was eager to succeed Jackson as the next president. When Van Buren resigned from the cabinet as part of a general reorganization, Jackson appointed him minister to England, an appointment Calhoun blocked in the Senate.

✪ 85

Jackson was easily reelected in 1832, with Van Buren as Jackson’s vice president. Jackson then pushed Van Buren to succeed him as president. At first, there was much opposition to Van Buren. Many people saw him as a political schemer, while Southerners mistrusted his stand on the tariff issue and slavery. The new Whig Party ran sectional candidates in hopes of preventing Van Buren from winning enough electoral votes. However, Van Buren handily won the election of 1836 with 170 electoral votes. ONE-TERM PRESIDENCY Just two months after taking office in March 1837, Van Buren was confronted with the Panic of 1837, a severe economic depression that lasted until 1843. More than 900 banks collapsed, and food riots took place in several cities. Van Buren favored the creation of government– controlled subtreasuries that would control federal lending, but this plan did not ease the nation’s financial crisis. Van Buren ran for reelection in 1840, but he was blamed for the country’s economic problems. He also avoided the rising question of the annexation of Texas, which had become independent from Mexico in 1836. He lost the 1840 presidential race to William Henry Harrison (1841), the Whig party candidate. See also: Democratic Party; Election of 1828; Election of 1832; Jackson, Andrew; Whig Party.

FURTHERREADING Lazo, Caroline. Martin Van Buren. Minneapolis, Minn.: Lerner Publications, 2005.

T– V

86

✪

Van Buren, Martin (1782–1862)

Sibley, Joe. Martin Van Buren and the Emergence of American Popular Politics. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002.

Voting and Nationalism The right to cast ballots and how potential voters feel about their country, their desire to vote in national elections, and the spread of democracy. Modern Americans take voting for granted. However, when the United States was formed and adopted the U.S. Constitution in 1788, the number of citizens who could vote was very limited. Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the number of eligible voters increased significantly. Today, almost all citizens over the age of 18 can vote. FORMATIVE YEARS Put simply, the nation’s founders did not trust that the average citizen would be smart enough to vote directly for a national leader. When they wrote the Constitution, there was much arguing about how a president would be chosen. Instead of implementing a direct popular vote, they established an Electoral College. The legislatures in each state would choose electors, and each would cast two votes. The number of electors in each state equaled the number of senators and representatives. Each elector would vote, and all of their sealed ballots would be delivered to the president of the Senate, who would open the ballots and tally them. The winner was the person with the majority of votes. If there was a tie, the House of Representatives would

choose the winner. If no candidate received a majority, the House would choose among the five candidates with the highest number of votes. The candidate with the second–highest vote total in the House vote would be vice president. The 1800 presidential election resulted in an electoral tie between Democratic–Republicans Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. The House then voted, with each state having one vote. It took 36 ballots before some states changed their ballot and Jefferson was finally declared the winner. As a result of this electoral confusion, the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1804 to prevent another such deadlock. This amendment specified that each elector would cast separate ballots for president and vice president. VOTING RESTRICTIONS In most states, during the early years of the nation only white men could vote. Many states had voting limitations such as property qualifications or literacy tests, to disqualify those the elite class felt should not vote. Such attitudes were remnants of an earlier time, but as the nation grew, these attitudes disappeared in favor of a more democratic approach to voting. As time went on, elections became more democratic. In 1804, 11 states chose their electors by popular vote; only 6 states directed their legislatures to choose electors. The lone state that relied on its legislature to decide its electors was South Carolina, which changed to a popular vote only in 1868.

Voting and Nationalism

CAUCUS SYSTEM REPLACED The way presidential candidates are selected has changed over the years. Political parties did not exist and were not taken into consideration when the Constitution was written. Two political parties had formed quickly, though, each with different views on how the government should run the country. At first, candidates were selected by congressional caucuses, when party members gathered to select a suitable candidate. In time, this process was viewed as undemocratic. By 1832, the caucus system was replaced by a party convention, similar to those today but much simpler. Until the Democrats adopted an official party platform in 1840, none of the parties announced any systems of belief.

Popular Vote in Presidential Elections, 1808–1836 Election year

States States with with popular legislative voting voting

1808 1812 1816 1820

10 9 9 14

7 9 9 9

1824 1828 1832 1836

18 22 22 24

6 2 2 1

PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS Presidential campaigns in the period before the Civil War (1861–1865) were brief when compared to those of modern United States. Candidates were not chosen until the summer

✪ 87

Percentage of Voters Participating in Presidential Elections 1824 1828 1832

26.9% 57.6% 55.4%

1836 1840 1844

57.8% 80.2% 78.9%

1848 1852 1856

72.7% 69.6% 78.9%

1860

81.2%

before the November election date. There were no primary elections to weed out candidates. Because presidential candidates were not expected to campaign, party newspapers carried word of their views and attacked the other party. Newspapers of the nineteenth century were much more partisan than today. Many towns had at least two major newspapers, one for each party. Even the date of the election was different from state to state until 1845, when Congress mandated the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as election day. As more states went to popular voting and dropped voting limitations, records indicate that popular interest in voting began to increase dramatically. Andrew Jackson’s (1829–1837) supporters were the first organized group to make extra efforts to get voters to the polls. Compare these percentages to recent elections (1996–49%; 2000–50.2%; 2004–55.5%), and it becomes apparent how quickly the interest in electing a president grew.

T– V

88

✪

Voting and Nationalism

Voter participation in presidential elections became more democratic and fostered a growing sense of nationalism throughout the country. The growth of political parties and concrete platforms also helped voters decide on their candidate of choice rather than just vote for a candidate’s personality or previous reputation. GROWTH OF VOTING RIGHTS After the Civil War, voting rights were extended even more. AfricanAmerican males received the right to vote in 1870 (with the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment), and women got the right to vote in 1920 (Nineteenth Amendment). In 1971, the Twenty–sixth Amendment lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. The Seventeenth Amendment (1913) gave

people the right to directly vote for their senators rather than by legislative choice. Today, American citizens vote directly for federal representatives and senators, as well as for state and local officials. However, voters still cast ballots for electors who choose the nation’s president. See also: Democratic Party; Democratic–Republican Party; Jackson, Andrew; Republican Party; Whig Party.

FURTHERREADING Saffell, David C. The Encyclopedia of U.S. Presidential Elections. New York: Children’s Press, 2004. Shields–West, Eileen. The World Almanac of Presidential Campaigns. New York: Pharos Books, 1992. Schulman, Bruce J., ed. Student’s Guide to Elections. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2008.

W–Z War of 1812 Lasting from 1812 to 1815, conflict between the United States and Great Britain. Some historians have called this war the “Second American Revolution” because of the unsettled relationship between the two countries after the American Revolution (1775– 1783). Although the war did not settle any trade issues and the United States did not gain any land, Americans’ sense of pride and nationalism soared after the war. ORIGINS OF THE WAR The war was a long time coming because of increased friction between the two nations, mostly caused by British naval actions. As a result of the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) in Eu-

rope, both French and British warships treated American merchant ships with contempt, sometimes seizing them to prevent the vessels from sailing into enemy ports. British ships stopped American ships to search for sailors who had deserted from the Royal Navy. Often, British commanders would impress U.S. sailors even if they were not deserters. On more than one occasion, warships of both nations exchanged fire. The United States imposed trade restrictions on the European powers, but such action hurt the struggling American economy more than it hurt the European powers. In retaliation, the British imposed severe restrictions on American imports. Americans also accused British agents from Canada

War of 1812

of inciting Native Americans to fight against American expansion as settlers moved west into the territories of Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan. WAR BEGINS In Congress, members who favored war with Great Britain were called war hawks. War hawks in Congress clamored for war and argued that the United States should seize Canada to make up for British acts at sea and Native American attacks in the West. President James Madison (1809–1817) finally went along with Congress, which declared war on June 18, 1812. Five days later, the British Parliament repealed the offensive restrictions on imports, but because communication by sea was so slow, the British action did not stop the war. FIGHTING ON THE CANADIAN BORDER Soon after war was declared, U.S. troops, both regular army and militia units, began assembling to attack Canada. Fighting began in October 1812, when a U.S. invasion force crossed the Niagara River, only to be badly defeated at Queenston Heights. In April 1813, a U.S. force, accompanied by a naval squadron, landed at York (present–day Toronto) and burned the Canadian government buildings before leaving. A stalemate then developed between the enemies. WAR IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY AREA In 1814, a major British offensive took place in the Chesapeake Bay region. A British invasion force landed near Washington, D.C. On August 24, the British defeated the city’s defend-

✪ 89

ers at Bladensburg, Maryland, then occupied the capital, burning several government buildings, including the White House, in retaliation for the U.S. troops’ burning of York. The British moved north to Baltimore, which was better defended by a large force of militia. The British fleet bombarded Fort McHenry on September 13, but the fort held and the British retreated. Local attorney Francis Scott Key penned “The Star–Spangled Banner” to honor the fort’s heroic fight. The poem, later set to music, became the country’s national anthem in 1931. FIGHTING IN THE SOUTH While Americans and British fought in the North, the Creek Indians attacked American settlements in the Mississippi Territory. General Andrew Jackson, commander of the Tennessee militia, gathered a large army and attacked the Creek, soundly defeating them at Horseshoe Bend on March 27, 1814. Jackson was then promoted to command all U.S. troops in the Gulf region. He moved his troops to New Orleans to defend that important city against a possible British attack. A force of 7,500 British veterans landed just south of the city in December 1814. Jackson assembled a mixed force of regulars, volunteers, free blacks, and pirates. The British attacked on January 8, 1815, and were mowed down by the entrenched defenders, who inflicted more than 2,000 casualties while losing only 13 men. END OF THE WAR As the war progressed, American and British negotiators met at Ghent, Belgium, to resolve the conflict. The men finally signed the Treaty of Ghent on

W– Z

90

✪

War of 1812

On August 24, 1814, British troops entered Washington, D.C. They burned all the government buildings as revenge for the burning of Canadian government buildings in York (now Toronto) by American troops earlier in the War of 1812.

December 24, 1814. The treaty ignored the prewar American issues with Great Britain. The treaty provided for the release of prisoners, restoration of territory as it existed before the war, and a commission to settle boundary disputes between the United States and Canada. Both sides also agreed to make peace with the Native Americans and restore to them the rights they had in 1811. The War of 1812 had nearly bankrupted the United States and led to increasing criticism of the Madison administration. New England states were unhappy over the trade embargo, and in December 1814,

representatives met in Hartford, Connecticut, to discuss the situation. But the end of the war nipped their idea of secession in the bud. The war resulted in a resurgence of American nationalism as people were proud that they had stood up to Great Britain, the world’s major military power. The resounding American victory at the Battle of New Orleans in January 1815 made General Andrew Jackson a national hero. Yet the battle had no impact on the outcome of the war. The Treaty of Ghent had been signed the month before, but because of the slow communications of the time,

Webster–Ashburton Treaty (1842)

the troops at New Orleans did not know the war was over.

FURTHERREADING Benn, Carl. The War of 1812. New York: Osprey Publishing, 2002. Childress, Diana. The War of 1812. Minneapolis, Minn.: Lerner Publications, 2004.

Webster–Ashburton Treaty (1842) Anglo–American treaty that specified the final northern boundary between Maine and Canada. Because the area had not been completely mapped, American settlers and trappers in the region came into frequent conflict with the Canadians to the north. The Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War (1775–1783) in 1783. This treaty was supposed to define the northern boundary of Maine, but the vague language in the treaty, along with ignorance of the actual geography of northern Maine, failed to produce a border. Successive treaties in 1798 (Jay Treaty) and 1814 (Treaty of Ghent) also failed to clarify the boundary. Maine had become a state in 1820. Because the earlier treaties had failed, Great Britain and the United States submitted the problem to a neutral third party to resolve. The king of the Netherlands was awarded the dispute and in 1831 simply divided the 12,000 miles (19,312 km) equally between the two countries. The British Parliament accepted the king’s decision, but the U.S. Senate rejected it. Increasing numbers of U.S. settlers in the region of the Aroostook River led to the 1838–1839 “Aroostook War,” in which lumberjacks and

✪ 91

land agents from both sides of the border scuffled with each other. Many people called for war. However, Daniel Webster, secretary of state for John Tyler, proposed to settle the matter by treaty. Great Britain sent Alexander Baring, Lord Ashburton, to negotiate with Webster. The two men were very friendly with each other. Webster was an admirer of English culture, and Ashburton had married an American. Together, they worked out a treaty in which the United States received 7,000 miles (11,265 km) of territory and Great Britain 5,000 (8,046 km). The treaty also addressed the vague boundary between Canada and the United States west of Lake Superior to Lake of the Woods. The two men defined the northern boundary of the Minnesota Territory in favor of the United States. The treaty also included an agreement to exchange accused criminals between each country and the promise of Anglo–American cooperation to suppress the slave trade off the African coast. Webster was eager to win acceptance of the treaty, but he knew that the governors of Maine and Massachusetts might prove hostile to the treaty because Massachusetts land agents had sold property along the Aroostook River. Webster turned to historian Jared Sparks to help him. Sparks had mentioned to Webster that Benjamin Franklin, while negotiating the Treaty of Paris, had drawn a map that defined the Maine boundary “with a strong red line.” Sparks had seen this map while doing research in Paris and copied it from memory for Webster. The Sparks line favored

W– Z

92

✪

Webster–Ashburton Treaty (1842)

the extreme British claim. Webster showed Sparks’s map to the governors, who quickly agreed to the treaty because the U.S. would get a much larger part of the disputed area. The Senate passed the treaty 39– 9, and it was signed into law in 1842. Much later, authentic maps drawn in the 1780s were found in both England and America. They supported the extreme American claim, unlike Sparks’s version. All in all, Webster’s bottom line was to secure a definite boundary and prevent further border disturbances that might lead to war. See also: Webster, Daniel.

FURTHERREADING Dalzell, Robert, Jr. Daniel Webster and the Trial of American Nationalism, 1843–1852. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1973. Stein, Mark. How the States Got Their Shapes. New York: Collins, 2008.

Webster, Daniel (1782–1852) New Hampshire native who was one of the greatest pre–Civil War (1861– 1865) congressmen. Some historians have called Webster the nation’s first conservative because he opposed tariffs and other government assistance to businesses and industries. He believed that too much government protection would lead “the people to too much reliance on government.” EARLY CAREER Webster was a Federalist in his early political career, which began in 1812 when he was elected to the House of Representatives. Serving until 1817, Webster opposed war with England

but supported it once the War of 1812 (1812–1814) began. He also opposed New England’s call for secession during the war because of James Madison’s (1809–1817) embargo on foreign trade. Webster was a nationalist but a conservative one. He looked down on Henry Clay’s American System, whose followers envisioned a rapid growth that would turn the United States into a world power. Webster instead wanted a slower, controlled growth that would include a low tariff that would force U.S. industries to be competitive on the international level. According to Webster’s beliefs, if growth occurred too fast factory towns might employ dependent laborers who would always be poor. Later in his career, however, he advocated for higher tariffs, a national bank, and federally funded internal improvements. Webster was also nicknamed the “Defender of the Constitution.” He was a brilliant lawyer. Between 1814 and 1852, Webster argued 223 cases before the Supreme Court. Although he only won about half of these, the Court thought highly of his learned orations about the separation of powers as defined by the Constitution. Webster won arguments in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), successfully arguing that a state could not interfere with congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. DEFENDING THE UNION Webster represented Massachusetts in Congress from 1822 to 1827 before being appointed to the Senate. During Andrew Jackson’s (1829–

Webster, Daniel (1782–1852)

J 93

During the eight months of debate over the Compromise of 1850, Daniel Webster was one of many senators who gave lengthy and passionate speeches about this controversial legislation that only delayed settling the slavery issue.

1837) presidency, Webster was a firm defender of federal authority. He strongly opposed South Carolina’s idea of nullification, rightly believing that such actions would dissolve the Union and result in civil war. His concluding sentence of a four–hour speech in the Senate, “Liberty and Union now and forever, one and inseparable,” became associated with Webster for the rest of his life. Webster ran for president in 1836 but carried only Massachusetts. Four years later, in 1841, he campaigned for William Henry Harrison, who appointed Webster secretary of state. Upon Harrison’s untimely death, John

KC_Nationalism_F.indd 93

Tyler (1841–1845) took over the presidency. In protest of Tyler’s policies, all of Harrison’s cabinet resigned, except Webster, who was negotiating a border treaty with Great Britain. Later called the Webster– Ashburton Treaty, it gave Maine a definite boundary. Webster did resign after the treaty was completed. After another term in the Senate, Webster became President Millard Fillmore’s (1850–1853) secretary of state. In this capacity, he supported the congressional legislation that became known as the Compromise of 1850, hoping to solve the growing slavery issue that threatened to split

W– Z

3/17/10 11:27:47 AM

94

✪

Webster, Daniel (1782–1852)

American political party whose members were active in the period from 1834 to 1856. The Whig Party was formed as a coalition of people opposed to Andrew Jackson’s (1829– 1837) imperial style of presidency. The party’s name was deliberately chosen to mimic the British Whig Party that had been formed in the 1600s to oppose the Stuart monarchy. Whigs opposed “King Andrew” Jackson’s presidency.

sions. Its leaders included Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John Quincy Adams, newspaperman Horace Greeley, and Second National Bank president Nicholas Biddle. A young Illinois politician named Abraham Lincoln was a member of the party. The early Whig coalition included business leaders, merchants, and conservatives, all enraged at Jackson’s economic policy. Southerners who were upset with Jackson’s stance on nullification and the tariff also joined the Whigs. Former members of the Anti–Masonic Party became Whigs when their party splintered. The Whigs attracted educated people, those who had wealth, those who were self-made or aspired to be, and those who were respected members of their local communities. Moral and social reformers also found a place in the party. Churches represented by Whigs included Congregationalists, Quakers, Episcopalians, Unitarians, and some Presbyterians. Whigs stood for a more progressive, industrialized nation. The party endorsed Henry Clay’s American System, which included federally funded internal improvements, a national bank, and a protective tariff. Reformers among the party membership advocated a better system of public schools and promoted temperance, avoiding the drinking of alcoholic beverages. All in all, the Whigs espoused a nationalistic program designed to strengthen the United States.

WHIG PARTY MEMBERSHIP The Whig Party encompassed a wide range of people and profes-

WHIG PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS The Whigs first entered the national presidential election in 1836. Be-

the country in two. Webster also was responsible for sending Commodore Matthew C. Perry along with a small naval squadron to Japan to seek an opening there for U.S. trade. Before Perry’s mission was completed in 1854, Webster died in October 1852. Many historians consider Webster, along with Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun, as the three best orators in Congress. With their deaths in the 1850s, the spirit of compromise diminished and gave way to heated debates over slavery that ultimately led to the Civil War (1861–1865). See also: Webster–Ashburton Treaty (1842).

FURTHERREADING Harvey, Bonnie C. Daniel Webster: Liberty and Union, Now and Forever. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow, 2001. Remini, Robert V. Daniel Webster: The Man and His Time. New York: W.W. Norton, 1997.

Whig Party

Whig Party

cause the party often had a problem with unifying its diverse members, it was plagued by factionalism. In 1836, three different Whig candidates ran for president in different parts of the country. All three lost to Martin Van Buren (1837–1841). The three men combined for about 50 percent of the total vote—William H. Harrison (37 percent), Hugh L. White (10.25 percent), and Daniel Webster (2.75 percent). The Whigs held their first national convention in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in 1839, to field a single presidential candidate in 1840. They decided on William Henry Harrison again, with Virginian John Tyler as the vicepresidential nominee. The campaign took place in the midst of an economic depression—the Panic of 1839—which was the main issue in the election. Harrison (1841) easily won, with 52 percent of the vote. After the 1840 congressional elections, the Whigs had control of both the Senate and the House, giving them a good chance to enact their program of economic growth for the nation. However, Harrison died after only a month in office, and John Tyler (1841–1845) suddenly became president. He vetoed a national bank bill twice, angering the party. In protest, his entire cabinet, except for Daniel Webster, resigned. The Whigs disowned Tyler, who had no chance to be elected on his own in the election of 1844. The Whigs nominated Henry Clay as their candidate in 1844, while the Democrats chose James K. Polk. The campaign focused on the issue of the annexation of Texas, which the

✪ 95

Whigs opposed, unless it was done peacefully. Polk (1845–1849) won by 38,000 popular votes. The Whigs won their second and last presidential election in 1848, when their candidate was General Zachary Taylor (1849–1850), a hero of the recent Mexican–American War (1846–1848). Taylor was immediately faced with the issue of slavery, as California had petitioned to join the Union. Though a slaveholder himself, Taylor opposed the extension of slavery. He opposed the five bills that eventually became the Compromise of 1850. Taylor died in July 1850, before the bills were passed by Congress. He was succeeded by Vice President Millard Fillmore (1850– 1853), who then signed the compromise into law. THE SLAVERY ISSUE Any unity that the Whig Party had ended as the slavery issue came to the forefront. Southern members of the party drifted into the Democratic Party, which defended slavery and urged territorial expansion to help maintain the slave system. In the 1852 election, the Whigs chose another general, Winfield Scott, who lost to Democrat Franklin Pierce (1853– 1857). Four years later, in 1856, former vice president Millard Fillmore received only 21.5 percent of the popular vote. Fillmore was the Whig Party’s last presidential candidate. By the mid– 1850s, the slavery issue was the most prominent political topic in the United States. The coalition that originally formed the Whig Party soon broke up. Southern Whigs joined the

W– Z

96

✪

Whig Party

Democratic Party, while Northern members formed the core of the new Republican Party, which adopted some Whig ideas such as federally funded internal improvements and the formation of a national bank. See also: American System; Clay, Henry; Taylor, Zachary; Tyler, John.

FURTHERREADING Howe, Daniel W. What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815– 1848. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Reichley, A. James. The Life of the Parties: A History of American Political Parties. New York: The Free Press, 1992.

Worcester v. Georgia (1832) Supreme Court case in which Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Cherokee tribe was protected by federal treaty within its own territory and that Georgia state law did not extend into Cherokee land. This case was the high point of Cherokee resistance to forcible eviction from their ancestral homeland and had an impact on the presidential election of 1832. ORIGINS OF THE CASE The case originated when the Georgia legislature passed a law in December 1830. Under this law, no white person would be allowed to reside in Cherokee Territory after March 1, 1831, without a license from the state. Georgia governor George Gilmer aimed this law at Christian missionaries operating within Cherokee land. Missionaries were among the most vocal opponents of Native

American removal to west of the Mississippi River, and Gilmer hoped to expel them. Samuel Worcester and Elizur Butler were two missionaries who were in Cherokee Territory, using federal funds to help civilize the Native Americans. They refused to leave or obtain a license from the state and were arrested on July 7. Both men were sentenced to four years of hard labor. Their imprisonment was rough because state officials intended to crack their will to resist. Both missionaries appealed their case to the Supreme Court. The Court decision was announced on March 3, 1832. Chief Justice John Marshall read the 5–1 majority opinion in favor of the Cherokee nation. The main point was to examine whether or not state laws were in violation of federal law as included in the Constitution. Marshall wrote that the Constitution and subsequent laws of the United States viewed Native American tribes as “distinct political entities, having territorial boundaries, within which their authority is exclusive. . . .” By extension, then, Marshall reasoned, the Cherokee constituted a distinct community with its own boundaries, in which Georgia law had no force, and no Georgia citizen could enter without Cherokee approval: “The Acts of Georgia are repugnant to the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.” The forcible seizure and abduction of the two missionaries was thus illegal. The lone dissenter in this court opinion was Henry Baldwin, a Jackson appointee who filed no opinion in the case.

Worcester v. Georgia (1832)

✪ 97

Defining the Cherokee Nation

I

n this rebuttal to his earlier decision in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), Chief Justice John Marshall defined the status of the Cherokee. He concluded with harsh comments of the acts of the Georgia legislature.

The Cherokee Nation . . . is a distinct community, occupying its own territory, with boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves or in conformity with treaties and with the acts of Congress. The whole intercourse between the United States and this nation is, by our Constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States. The act of the State of Georgia under which the plaintiff in error was prosecuted is consequently

IMPACT OF THE DECISION However, enforcement of the Supreme Court decision proved to be impossible. The federal government could not send a U.S. marshal to free the prisoners until a state judge refused to comply in writing with the order. The Georgia court did indeed refuse to comply in writing. The state had boycotted the Supreme Court case and clearly intended to ignore the decision. Even President Jackson is reputed to have said, “John Marshall has made his opinion, now let him enforce it.” It is more likely he

void, and the judgement a nullity. . . . The Acts of Georgia are repugnant to the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. They are in direct hostility with treaties, repeated in a succession of years, which mark out the boundary that separates Cherokee country from Georgia; guarantee to them all the land within their boundary; solemnly pledge the faith of the United States to restrain their citizens from trespassing on it; and recognize the pre–existing power of the nation to govern itself. . . .

actually wrote, “The decision of the supreme court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.” The end result was the enforced migration of the Cherokee in 1837 and 1838 to what is today Oklahoma. See also: Indian Removal Act; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831).

FURTHERREADING Sherrow, Victoria. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia: Native American Rights. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow Publishers, 1997.

W– Z

Viewpoints About

Nationalism War Message to Congress, James Madison, 1812 President James Madison (1809–1817) was under increasing pressure to declare war on Great Britain for its naval attacks on American shipping and its agitation of Native Americans on the young nation’s western frontier. In response, Madison sent a message to Congress on June 1, 1812, reviewing British transgressions and asking Congress to decide on war or peace. Congress declared war on June 18. The following excerpts summarize Madison’s review of British disrespect and his constitutional duty to leave the question of war or peace up to Congress.

British cruisers have been in the continued practice of violating the American flag on the great highway of nations, and of seizing and carrying off persons sailing under it, not in the exercise of a belligerent right founded on the law of nations against an enemy, but of a municipal prerogative over British subjects. British jurisdiction is thus extended to neutral vessels in a situation where no laws can operate but the law of nations and the laws of the country to which the vessels belong, and a self–redress is assumed, which, if British subjects were wrongfully detained and alone concerned, is that substitution of force for a resort to the responsible sovereign

“

which falls within the definition of war. . . . British cruisers have been in the practice also of violating the rights and the peace of our coasts. They hover over and harass our entering and departing commerce. To the most insulting pretensions they have added the most lawless proceedings in our very harbors, and have wantonly spilt American blood within the sanctuary of our territorial jurisdictions. . . . In reviewing the conduct of Great Britain toward the United States our attention is necessarily drawn to the warfare just renewed by the savages on one of our extensive frontiers—a warfare which is known to

98

Nationalism

gressive usurpations and these accumulating wrongs or, opposing force to force in defense of their national rights, shall commit a just cause into the hands of the Almighty bisposer of Events, avoiding all connections which might entangle it in the contest or views of other powers, and preserving a constant readiness to concur in an honorable reestablishment of peace and friendship, is a solemn question which the Constitution wisely confides to the legislative department of the Government. In recommending it to their early deliberations I am happy in the assurance that the decision will be worthy the enlightened and patriotic councils of a virtuous, a free, and a powerful nation. . . .

“

spare neither age nor sex and to be distinguished by features peculiarly shocking to humanity. It is difficult to account for the activity and combinations which have for some time been developing themselves among tribes in constant intercourse with British traders and garrisons without connecting their hostility with that influence and without recollecting the authenticated examples of such interpositions heretofore furnished by the officers and agents of that Government. . . . We behold, in fine, on the side of Great Britain, a state of war against the United States, and on the side of the United States a state of peace toward Great Britain. Whether the United States shall continue passive under these pro-

✪ 99

100

✪

Nationalism

The British Burn the Nation’s Capital, George Gleig, 1814 British officer George Gleig was among 4,000 British soldiers, led by General Robert Ross, who landed east of Washington, D.C., in August 1814. Ross’s troops defeated a larger but less experienced American army at Bladensburg, Maryland, on August 24, and quickly marched into Washington, burning government buildings, including the presidential mansion, before returning to their ships. Gleig wrote of his experience in his autobiography. The walls of the president’s mansion remained standing and were later incorporated into a rebuilt structure that was painted white to cover up the scars of the burning. To this day, it is called the White House.

“

before the fire; pots, saucepans, and other culinary utensils stood upon the grate; and all the other requisites for an elegant and substantial repast were exactly in a state which indicated that they had been lately and precipitately abandoned. You will readily imagine that these preparations were beheld by a party of hungry soldiers with no indifferent eye . . . Having satisfied their appetites with fewer complaints than would have probably escaped their rival Gourmands, and partaken pretty freely of the wines, they finished by setting fire to the house. . . .

“

When the detachment sent out to destroy Mr. Madison’s house entered his dining parlor, they found a dinner table spread and covers laid for forty guests. Several kinds of wine, in handsome cut–glass decanters, were cooling on the sideboard; plate–holders stood by the fireplace, filled with dishes and plates; knives, forks, and spoons were arranged for immediate use; in short, everything was ready for the entertainment of a ceremonious party. Such were the arrangements in the dining room, whilst in the kitchen were others answerable to them in every respect. Spits, loaded with joints of various sorts, turned

Nationalism

✪ 101

Two Views on the Missouri Compromise, 1820 The bitter sectional, or regional, argument over the admission of Missouri as a state was one of the first indications of the divisive effects of the question of slavery in the United States. Here follow excerpts from two speeches that present both a Northern and a Southern point of view during the debates in Congress that resulted in the Compromise of 1820, also known as the Missouri Compromise.

“

latter, no doubt, preponderating. . . . Whether slavery was ordained by God Himself in a particular revelation to His chosen people, or whether it be merely permitted as a part of that moral evil which seems to be the inevitable portion of man, are questions I will not approach; I leave them to the casuists and the divines. It is sufficient for us, as statesmen, to know that it has existed from the earliest ages of the world, and that to us has been assigned such a portion as, in reference to their number and the various considerations resulting from a change of their condition, no remedy, even plausible, has been suggested, though wisdom and benevolence united have unceasingly brooded over the subject. However dark and inscrutable may be the ways of heaven, who is he that arrogantly presumes to arraign them? The same mighty power that planted the greater and the lesser luminary in the heavens permits on earth the bondsman and the free. To that Providence, as men and Christians, let us bow. If it be consistent with His will, in the fullness of time, to break the fetter of the slave, He will raise up some Moses to be their deliverer. To him commission will be given to lead them up out of the land of bondage.

“

Representative Arthur Livermore of New Hampshire: Slavery in the United States is the condition of man subjected to the will of a master who can make any disposition of him short of taking away his life. In those States where it is tolerated, laws are enacted making it penal to instruct slaves in the art of reading, and they are not permitted to attend public worship or to hear the Gospel preached. Thus the light of science and of religion is utterly excluded from the mind, that the body may be more easily bowed down to servitude. The bodies of slaves may, with impunity, be prostituted to any purpose and deformed in any manner by their owners. The sympathies of nature in slaves are disregarded; mothers and children are sold and separated; the children wring their little hands and expire in agonies of grief, while the bereft mothers commit suicide in despair. How long will the desire of wealth render us blind to the sin of holding both the bodies and souls of our fellowmen in chains! Senator James Barbour of Virginia: Let it not, however, be supposed that in the abstract I am advocating slavery. Like all other human things, it is mixed with good and evil—the

102

✪

Nationalism

Speech Denouncing the Nullifiers, President Andrew Jackson, 1832 On December 20, 1832, President Andrew Jackson (1829–1837) issued a presidential proclamation that answered South Carolina’s threat to nullify federal tariffs that the state legislature considered to be unconstitutional. These excerpts sum up the president’s viewpoint on the situation, namely the “mad project of disunion.”

“

obedience to the illegal and disorganizing ordinance of the convention; to exhort those who have refused to support it to persevere in their determination to uphold the Constitution and laws of their country; and to point out to all the perilous situation into which the good people of that State have been led, and that the course they are urged to pursue is one of ruin and disgrace to the very State whose rights they affect to support. . . . Disunion by armed force is treason. Are you ready to incur its guilt? If you are, on the heads of the instigators of the act be the dreadful consequences; on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall the punishment. On your unhappy State will inevitably fall all the evils of the conflict you force upon the Government of your country. It can not accede to the mad project of disunion, of which you would be the first victims. Its First Magistrate can not, if he would, avoid the performance of his duty. The consequence must be fearful for you, distressing to your fellow–citizens here and to the friends of good government throughout the world.

“

This, then, is the position in which we stand: A small majority of the citizens of one State in the Union have elected delegates to a State convention; that convention has ordained that all the revenue laws of the United States must be repealed, or that they are no longer a member of the Union. The governor of that State has recommended to the legislature the raising of an army to carry the secession into effect, and that he may be empowered to give clearances to vessels in the name of the State. No act of violent opposition to the laws has yet been committed, but such a state of things is hourly apprehended. And it is the intent of this instrument to proclaim, not only that the duty imposed on me by the Constitution “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed” shall be performed to the extent of the powers already vested in me by law, or of such others as the wisdom of Congress shall devise and intrust [entrust] to me for that purpose, but to warn the citizens of South Carolina who have been deluded into an opposition to the laws off the danger they will incur by

Nationalism

✪ 103

American Railroad, Charles Dickens, 1842 The noted nineteenth–century English novelist Charles Dickens (1812–1870) visited the United States and in 1842 published American Notes for General Circulation. In Chapter 4 of this memoir of his travels through America, Dickens describes a railroad trip from Boston to Lowell, Massachusetts, to visit the growing textile industry in Lowell.

There are no first and second class carriages as with us; but there is a gentleman’s car and a ladies’ car; the main distinction between which is that in the first, everybody smokes; and in the second, nobody does. As a black man never travels with a white one, there is also a negro car; which is a great, blundering, clumsy chest, . . . There is a great deal of jolting, a great deal of noise, a great deal of wall, not much window, a locomotive engine, a shriek, and a bell. The cars are like shabby omnibuses, but larger; holding thirty, forty, fifty, people. The seats, instead of stretching from end to end, are placed crosswise. Each seat holds two persons. There is a long row of them on each side of the caravan, a narrow passage up the middle, and a door at both ends. In the centre of the carriage there is usually a stove, fed with charcoal or anthracite coal; which is for the most part red–hot. It is insufferably close; and you see the hot air fluttering between yourself and any other object you may

“

happen to look at, like a ghost of smoke. . . . Except when a branch road joins the main one, there is seldom more than one track of rails; so that the road is very narrow, and the view, where there is a deep cutting, by no means extensive. When there is not, the character of the scenery is always the same. Mile after mile of stunted trees; some hewn down by the axe, some blown down by the wind, some half fallen and resting on their neighbours, many mere logs half hidden in the swamp, others mouldered away to spongy chips. . . . Now you emerge for a few brief minutes on an open country, glittering with some bright lake or pool, broad as many an English river, but so small here that it scarcely has a name; now catch hasty glimpses of a distant town, with its clean white houses and their cool piazzas, its prim New England church and school–house; when whir–r–r–r–! Almost before you have seen them, comes the same dark screen: the stunted trees, the stumps, the logs, the stagnant water–all so like the last (continues)

✪

Nationalism

(continued) that you seem to have been transported back again by magic. The train calls at stations in the woods, where the wild impossibility of anybody having the smallest reason to get out, is only to be equalled by the apparent desperate hopelessness of there being anybody to get in. It rushes across the turnpike road, where there is no gate, no policeman, no signal: nothing but a rough wooden arch, on which is painted ‘WHEN THE BELL RINGS, LOOK OUT FOR THE LOCOMOTIVE.’ . . . There— with mechanics working at their trades, and people leaning from their doors and windows, and boys flying

kites and playing marbles, and men smoking, and women talking, and children crawling, and pigs burrowing, and unaccustomed horses plunging and rearing, close to the very rails—there—on, on, on— tears the mad dragon of an engine with its train of cars; scattering in all directions a shower of burning sparks from its wood fire; screeching, hissing, yelling, panting; until at last the thirsty monster stops beneath a covered way to drink, the people cluster around, and you have time to breathe again.

“

104

Nationalism

✪ 105

Gang Labor on a Kentucky Plantation, 1857 The life of a slave varied, depending on the personality of the master and what kind of punishment he inflicted for disobedience. A slave’s life also depended on the type of farm or plantation on which the slave lived. Here, from his memoir Slavery Days in Old Kentucky, former slave Isaac Johnson describes labor on a typical Kentucky plantation in the late 1850s.

“

when there was no other work, their hours of labor being from 16 to 18 each day. The slaves were divided into gangs, and over each gang was a Boss, who was also one of the slaves. At four o’clock each morning, the bell was rung and each Boss had to see that his gang was up and ready to commence the day’s work. They marched by gangs to the tables set up under some trees in the yard, where breakfast was served for which one half hour was allowed, after which each Boss marched his gang to the fields or to the kind of work laid out for them. The overseer rode on horse back from one gang to another seeing that all were kept busy. If he saw two or three idle, or talking to each other, if no satisfactory reason could be given, a whipping was sure to follow. . . .

“

The year 1857 was at hand. Fifteen slaves had been left on the farm to do the winter work. These were kept busy husking and shelling corn, taking some to the mill, then to the distillery and made into liquor. That year of 1857 there were from five to six hundred barrels of liquor made and stored in the cellar. Master at this time was about sixty years of age and he married a girl about seventeen. He returned to the farm with his young wife, twelve slaves besides the stewardess, named Rosa, and trouble soon began. Rosa was well fitted for her position and she had a general oversight of all the slaves. She was an octoroon [a person who was one–eighth black] and had the confidence of Master who trusted her to the utmost. New slaves were brought in every few days and these were set to work during the summer, clearing land

106

✪

Nationalism

Life on a Mississippi Steamboat, Mark Twain, 1883 In this passage, American author Samuel Langhorne Clemens (1835–1910), writing under the pen name Mark Twain, expertly describes a sleepy Mississippi River town and the hectic excitement generated upon the arrival of one of the grand paddlewheel steamboats prevalent in the two decades before the Civil War (1861–1865). Steamboats made it easier to move people and goods long distances and were a powerful symbol of the country’s growing nationalism.

After all these years I can picture that old time to myself now, just as it was then: the white town drowsing in the sunshine of a summer’s morning; the streets empty, or pretty nearly so; one or two clerks sitting in front of the Water Street stores, with their splint–bottomed chairs tilted back against the walls, chins on breasts, hats slouched over their faces, asleep—with shingle— shavings enough around to show what broke them down; a sow and a litter of pigs loafing along the sidewalk, doing a good business in watermelon rinds and seeds; two or three lonely little freight piles scattered about the “levee”; a pole of “skids” on the slope of the stone– paved wharf, and the fragrant town drunk asleep in the shadow of them; two or three wood flats at the head of the wharf, but nobody to listen to the peaceful lapping of the wavelets against them; the great Mississippi, the majestic, the magnificent Mississippi, rolling its mile–wide tide along, shining in the sun. . . .

“

Presently a film of dark smoke appears above one of those remote “points”; instantly a Negro drayman, famous for his quick eye and prodigious voice, lifts up the cry, “S–t–e–a–m–boat a–comin’!” and the scene changes! The town drunkard stirs, the clerks wake up, a furious clatter of drays follows, every house and store pours out a human contribution, and all in a twinkling the dead town is alive and moving. Drays, carts, men, boys, all go hurrying from many quarters to a common center, the wharf. Assembled there, the people fasten their eyes upon the coming boat as upon a wonder they are seeing for the first time. And the boat is rather a handsome sight, too. She is long and sharp and trim and pretty; she has two tall, fancy–topped chimneys, with a gilded device of some kind swung between them; a fanciful pilot– house, all glass and “gingerbread,” perched on top of the “texas” deck behind them; the paddle–boxes are gorgeous with a picture or with gilded rays above the boat’s name;

Nationalism

deck–hand stands picturesquely on the end of it with a coil of rope in his hand; the pent steam is screaming through the gauge–cocks; the captain lifts his hand, a bell rings, the wheels stop; then they turn back, churning the water to foam, and the steamer is at rest. Then such a scramble as there is to get aboard, and to get ashore, and to take in freight and to discharge freight, all at one and the same time; and such a yelling and cursing as the mates facilitate it all with! Ten minutes later the steamer is under way again. . . .

“

the boiler–deck, the hurricane–deck, and the texas deck are fenced and ornamented with clean white railings; there is a flag gallantly flying from the jack–staff; the furnace doors are open and the fires glaring bravely; the upper decks are black with passengers; the captain stands by the big bell, calm, imposing, the envy of all; great volumes of the blackest smoke are rolling and tumbling out of the chimneys—a husbanded grandeur created with a bit of pitch–pine just before arriving at a town; the crew are grouped on the forecastle; the broad stage is run far out over the port bow, and an envied

✪ 107

108

✪

Nationalism

The Trail of Tears, By a Survivor, ca. 1838 Samuel Cloud was nine years old when the Cherokee tribe was forcibly removed from its ancestral homeland in Georgia. Samuel’s great–great– grandson tells the story of Samuel’s memories of that horrible time.

“

her whole body. When she feels me by her side, she opens her blanket and lets me in. I nestle against her feverish body. I can make it another day, I know, because she is there. When I went to sleep last night, my mother was hot and coughing worse than usual. When I woke up, she was cold. I tried to wake her up, but she lay there. The soft warmth she once was, she is no more. I kept touching her, as hot tears stream down my face. She couldn’t leave me. She wouldn’t leave me. I hear myself call her name, softly, then louder. She does not answer. My aunt and uncle come over to me to see what is wrong. My aunt looks at my mother. My uncle pulls me from her. My aunt begins to wail. I will never forget that wail. I did not understand when my father died. My mother’s death I do not understand, but I suddenly know that I am alone. My clan will take care of me, but I will forever be denied her warmth, the soft fingers in my hair, her gentle breaths as we slept. I am alone. I want to cry. I want to scream in rage. I can do nothing. We bury her in a shallow grave by the road. I will never forget that lonesome hill of stone that is her final bed, as it fades from my sight. I tread softly by my uncle, my hand in his. I walk with my head turned, watching that small hill as it fades from my sight. The soldiers make us continue walking. My uncle talks to me, trying to comfort me. I walk in loneliness.

“

We walked for many days. I don’t know how long it has been since we left our home, but the mountains are behind us. Each day, we start walking a little later. They bury the dead in shallow graves because the ground is frozen. As we walk past white towns, the whites come out to watch us pass. No words are spoken to them. No words are said to us. Still I wish they would stop staring. I wish it were them walking in this misery and I were watching them. It is because of them that we are walking. I don’t understand why, but I know that much. They made us leave our homes. They made us walk to this new place we are heading to in the middle of winter. I do not like these people. Still, they stare at me as I walk past. We come to a big river, bigger than I have ever seen before. It is flowing with ice. The soldiers are not happy. We set up camp and wait. We are all cold and the snow and ice seem to hound us, claiming our people one by one. North is the color of blue, defeat and trouble. From there a chill wind blows for us as we wait by a frozen river. We wait to die. My mother is coughing now. She looks worn. Her hands and face are burning hot. My aunts and uncles try to take care of me, so she can get better. I don’t want to leave her alone. I just want to sit with her. I want her to stroke my hair, like she used to do. My aunts try to get me to sleep by them, but at night, I creep to her side. She coughs and it wracks

Glossary of Key Terms abolition The act of abolishing or doing away with, as in the abolition of slavery. abolitionist A person who supports abolition. agrarian Pertaining to agriculture or farming. annexation The addition of territory to an existing nation or state. anthracite coal A hard natural coal with a high luster and little volatile matter. Appalachian Mountains In North America, the mountain chain that extends in a northeast direction from northeastern Alabama to Maine; the chain has local names in different areas, such as the White Mountains (New Hampshire) and Allegheny Mountains (Pennsylvania). aqueduct Elevated stone channel for a canal that enables the canal to pass above streams, rivers, or low terrain. asylum Protection or refuge given by one country to refugees from another country. bicameral A legislature composed of two different branches or houses. capital Wealth in the form of money or property accumulated and used by an individual, corporation, business, or government. caucuses Meetings of a political party to make decisions about

policies and sometimes to choose candidates to run for office. cede To give the control or ownership of a piece of land to another nation. censure In politics, a vote to express disapproval or blame. coalition An alliance of factions, parties, or nations. colony A town or city established in a new land but controlled by a parent country. comptroller The person responsible for auditing and supervising the financial affairs of a corporation or governmental body. consensus An agreement or opinion reached by a group as a whole. dark-horse candidate A person who receives unexpected support for a (political) nomination. demilitarizing The act of removing all military troops and weapons from an area. depression A severe economic downturn during which the money supply shrinks, jobs are lost, and businesses close. The Great Depression in the United States began in 1929 and lasted through the 1930s. Earlier such economic downturns were called “panics.” desegregation The process of abolishing racial separation.

109

110

✪

Nationalism

Electoral College Set up by Article II of the U.S. Constitution to elect the president of the United States, system in which electors, rather than the people directly, cast ballots for the presedential nominees. electoral votes Ballots cast by members of the Electoral College for the office of U.S. president. emancipation Liberation; freedom from slavery. embargo Governmental order that prohibits merchant vessels from entering or leaving any of its ports. export To send or carry goods abroad for selling or trading. factions Groups of people forming a minority within a larger group, such as a political party that splits into factions based on different ideas. foreclose To take possession of a home, factory, farm, or other major asset for non-payment of a loan held by a financial institution, such as a bank. frigate A wooden warship of the period from the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries. U.S. frigates generally were armed with 36 or 44 cannons. gauges The distances between two parallel railroad rails. grassroots (movement) A political organization that originates with people who are at a distance from the center of government. ideology A set of beliefs, values, or ideas; a philosophy.

import To bring or carry goods into a country from foreign countries. impress To seize by force whatever is wanted by the person or government doing the taking; first used in United States history to describe the British practice of forcibly taking sailors from American ships. incumbent The person currently holding a position in an organization or a political office. inflation An abnormal increase in currency and credit beyond the proportion of available goods, resulting in an increase in prices. labor The organizations representing groups of workers. loyalist During the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), a colonist who sided with Great Britain and opposed independence. monarchy A nation ruled by a king or a queen. mutiny Rebellion against those in authority, especially used in military terms. nationalist A person who holds his or her country in high esteem. nullification The act by a state to declare federal laws null and void within its borders. nullify To make ineffective or useless. partisan Very biased support of a party, cause, faction, person, or ideas.

Nationalism

persecute To oppress or harass with bad treatment. platform A written statement of the beliefs or principles of a political party. pocket-veto The president’s method of rejecting a bill by keeping it unsigned on his or her desk until Congress goes out of session. political party An organized group of supporters of a particular political faction. popular sovereignty The belief that power lies with the people and that those individuals chosen to govern must carry out the people’s wishes. primary elections Elections in which voters choose from among a slate of candidates who will be the official party nominees in upcoming regular elections. prostitute One who sells sexual favors for money. ratification Official confirmation of a treaty or other such document by the U.S. Senate. revenue Government income from all sources, such as tariffs, taxes, and land sales. secede To break away from a country or other union. secession The act of seceding. sectionalist A person who believes in or practices sectionalism—loyalty to one’s region rather than to the entire nation as a whole. segregation The separation of groups, especially based on race.

✪ 111

sovereign Supreme or highest in power; superior to all others. speculated Having bought or sold a commodity such as land that carries a risk or chance that the buyer/seller might lose money. spoils system After an election, practice of the winning political party’s rewarding faithful supporters with positions in the government. stalemate A situation in which further action by either of two opponents is impossible. strict constructionism The view that the U.S. Constitution grants to the federal government only those specific powers identified in the document. suffrage The right to vote. tariff Tax on imported products. temperance movement Nineteenth–century social movement whose members tried to ban the sale of alcohol and prevent the social problems caused by the excessive use of alcohol. transcontinental railroad The railroad that was built to connect the East and West coasts of the United States. treaty A formal agreement between two or more countries that contains specific terms relating to trade, boundaries, peace, alliances, or related points. utopian communities Groups of people who gather together in an effort to live a perfect life.

112

✪

Nationalism

veto The power of the president to reject a law passed by Congress. wards Political divisions of towns or cities for the purposes of representation in government.

war hawk In 1812, name given to American politicians who were enthusiastic supporters of war against Great Britain.

Selected Bibliography Andrist, Ralph K. The Erie Canal. New York: American Heritage Publishing Company, 1964. Baxter, Maurice G. Henry Clay and the American System. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1995. Behrman, Carol H. James K. Polk. Minneapolis, Minn.: Lerner Publications, 2005. Benn, Carl. The War of 1812. New York: Osprey Publishing, 2002. Bergeron, Paul H. The Presidency of James K. Polk. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1987. Berman, Carol H. Andrew Jackson. Minneapolis, Minn.: Lerner Publications, 2004. Bourne, Russell. Floating West: The Erie and Other American Canals. New York: W.W. Norton, 1992. Brookhiser, Richard. Alexander Hamilton, American. New York: Touchstone, 2000. Brown, Roger H. Redeeming the Republic: Federalists, Taxation, and the Origins of the Constitution. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. Brown, Warren. John C. Calhoun. New York: Chelsea House, 1993. Commager, Henry S., ed. Documents of American History. New York: F.S. Crofts & Company, 1934. Burgan, Michael. The Missouri Compromise. Mankato, Minn.: Compass Point Books, 2006. Carey, Charles W. The Mexican War: Mr. Polk’s War. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow, 2002. Childress, Diana. The War of 1812. Minneapolis, Minn.: Lerner Publications, 2004. Cole, Donald B. The Presidency of Andrew Jackson. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1999.

Conley, Robert J. The Cherokee Nation: A History. Portland, Ore.: Graphic Arts Center Publishing Company, 2002. Dangerfield, George. The Era of Good Feelings. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company, 1952. Davis, William C. Portraits of the Riverboats. Berkeley, Calif.: Thunder Bay Press, 2001. DeGregorio, William A. The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents. New York: Wings Books, 1997. Diamond, Robert A., ed. Presidential Elections Since 1789. Washington, D. C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1975. Dickens, Charles. American Notes for General Circulation. Available online. URL: http://www.classicauthors/ Dickens/americannotes. Doutrich, Paul E. Shapers of the Great Debate on Jacksonian Democracy: A Biographical Dictionary. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2004. Drago, Harry S. Canal Days in America. New York: Clarkson N. Potter, 1972. Drake, Frederick D., and Lynn R. Nelson, eds. States’ Rights and American Federalism: A Documentary History. Wesport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1999. Elish, Dan. The Trail of Tears. New York: Benchmark Books, 2002. Ewen, William H. Days of the Steamboats. New York: Parents’ Magazine, 1967. Feinstein, Stephen. John Quincy Adams. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow, 2002. Fish, Bruce, and Becky D. Fish. The History of the Democratic Party. New York: Chelsea House, 2000. Forbes, Pierce. The Missouri Compromise and Its Aftermath: Slavery and the Meaning of America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007.

113

114

✪

Nationalism

Freehling, William. Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1818–1836. New York: Harper & Row, 1966. Gellner, Ernest. Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2008. Gumbel, Andrew. Steal This Vote: Dirty Elections and the Rotten History of Democracy. New York: Nation Books, 2005. Hamilton, Holman. Prologue to Conflict: The Crisis and Compromise of 1850. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2005. Hargreaves, Mary W.M. The Presidency of John Quincy Adams. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1985. Hart, Gary. James Monroe. New York: Times Books, 2005. Harvey, Bonnie C. Daniel Webster: Liberty and Union, Now and Forever. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow, 2001. Hawes, Robert F. One Nation, Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution. Palo Alto, Calif.: Fultus Corporation, 2006. Heidler, Davis S., and Jeanne T. Heidler, eds. Indian Removal (The Norton Casebooks in History). New York: W.W. Norton, 2006. Horton, James O., and Lois E. Horton. Slavery and the Making of America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Howe, Daniel W. What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815–1848. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Hoyt, Edwin P. American Steamboat Stories. New York: Abelard–Schuman, 1966. Imbriaco, Alison. Causes of the Civil War. Available online. URL: http:// www.MyReportLinks.com, 2004. Irving, H. Bartlett. John C. Calhoun: A Biography. New York: W.W. Norton, 1994.

Kapsch, Robert J. Canals. New York: W.W. Norton, 2004. Lazo, Caroline E. Martin Van Buren. Minneapolis, Minn.: Lerner Publications, 2005. Levy, Debbie. John Quincy Adams. Minneapolis, Minn.: Lerner Publications, 2004. McArthur, Debra. The Kansas–Nebraska Act and Bleeding Kansas in American History. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow, 2003. McCready, Albert L. Railroads in the Days of Steam. New York: American Heritage Publishing Company, 1960. Meltzer, Milton. Hear That Train Whistle Blow! How the Railroad Changed the World. New York: Random House Books for Young Readers, 2005. Miller, John C. The Federalist Era, 1789– 1801. New York: Harper & Row, 1960. Mintz, S. Digital History: Using New Technologies to Enhance Teaching and Research. Available online. URL: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu. Retrieved November 25, 2008. Moore, John L. Elections A to Z. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1999. Parsons, Lynn. The Birth of Modern Politics: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and the Election of 1828. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Perdue, Theda, and Michael D. Green. The Cherokee Nation and the Trail of Tears. New York: Viking Group, 2007. Pettifor, Bonnie, and Charles E. Petit. McCulloch v. Maryland: When Federal and State Powers Conflict. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow, 2004. Rakove, Jack N. James Madison and the Creation of the American Republic. New York: HarperCollins, 1990. Remini, Robert V. Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars. New York: Viking Penguin, 2001.

Nationalism

———. Henry Clay: Statesman for the Union. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1991. Renehan, Edward J., Jr. The Transcontinental Railroad: The Gateway to the West. New York: Chelsea House, 2007. Roberts, Jeremy. Zachary Taylor. Minneapolis, Minn.: Lerner Publications, 2005. Rodriguez, Junius P., ed. Slavery in the United States: A Social, Political, and Historical Encyclopedia. 2 vols. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC–CLIO, 2007. Rogin, Michael P. Fathers and Children: Andrew Jackson and the Subjugation of the American Indian. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1975. Rumsch, Breann. James K. Polk. Edina, Minn.: Abdo Publishing Company, 2009. Saffell, David C. The Encyclopedia of U.S. Presidential Elections. New York: Children’s Press, 2004. Satz, Ronald N. American Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1975. Sauer, Patrick. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the American Presidents. Indianapolis, Ind.: Alpha Books, 2000. Schulman, Bruce J., ed. Student’s Guide to Elections. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2008. Sherrow, Victoria. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia: Native American Rights. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow, 1997. Stover, John F. American Railroads. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.

✪ 115

———. The Routledge Historical Atlas of the American Railroads. New York: Routledge, 2000. Tax History Project at Tax Analysts. Tax History Museum: A Virtual Museum of United States Tax History. Available online. URL: http://www.tax.org/ Museum. Walker, Jane C. John Tyler: A President of Firsts. Granville, Ohio: McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, 2001. Watson, Harry L. Andrew Jackson vs. Henry Clay: Democracy and Development in Antebellum America. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1998. Waugh, John C. On the Brink of Civil War: The Compromise of 1850 and How It Changed the Course of American History. Lanham, Md.: SR Books, 2003. Whitcover, Jules. Party of the People: A History of the Democrats. New York: Random House, 2003. Wilentz, Sean. Andrew Jackson. New York: Henry Holt, 2005. WITF, Inc. “The Railroad in Pennsylvania.” In Stories from Pennsylvania History. Available online. URL: http:// www.explorePAhistory.com. Zelinsky, Wilbur. Nation into State: The Shifting Symbolic Foundations of American Nationalism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988. Zimmermann, Karl. Steamboats. Honesdale, Pa.: Boyd’s Mills Books, 2007.

Index Page numbers in boldface indicate topics covered in depth in the A to Z section of the book.

A

C

Adams, John, 35, 47–48, 53– 54, 64 Adams, John Quincy about, 10–12 in election of 1820, 37 in election of 1824, 26, 36, 39–41, 51, 85 in election of 1828, 41–43 and Florida, 12–13 and National Republican Party, 52 on slavery, 30 and Whig Party, 94 Adams-Onis Treaty, 12–13, 45 Alien and Sedition Acts, 48, 53–54, 64, 74 Amendments Tenth, 74 Twelfth, 39–41, 86 Thirteenth, 74 Fifteenth, 88 Seventeenth, 88 Nineteenth, 88 Twenty-sixth, 88 American Party, 67 American Revolution, 3, 66, 91 American System, 4, 13–15, 26, 57–58, 92, 94 Amistad, 11 Anti-Masonic Party, 44, 67 Arbuthnot, Alexander, 12 Armbrister, Robert, 12 Aroostook War, 91 Ashburton, Alexander Baring, 91–92

Calhoun, John C. about, 18–19 and Compromise of 1850, 31 in election of 1832, 44, 85 and nullification, 65, 74–75 and political parties, 36 and slavery, 73 and state sovereignty, 54 California, 30, 78–79 campaigns, presidential, 86 Canada, 56, 89 canals, 4, 19–23, 59, 68 Cass, Lewis, 78 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 23–26, 50 Cherokee tribe. See Native Americans civil rights, 75 Civil Rights Cases, 75 Civil War. See also slavery about, 9 onset of, 29, 32, 35 railroads in, 61 and sectionalism, 65 and states’ rights, 76 Clay, Henry. See also American System about, 26–27 and Bank of the United States, 17–18 and Compromise of 1850, 31 in election of 1824, 39–41 in election of 1832, 44, 53 in election of 1844, 56, 95 and political parties, 36, 94 and slavery, 28–29, 73 Clinton, De Witt, 20 Compromise of 1820 (Missouri Compromise), 26, 27–30, 37, 46, 67, 73, 76 Compromise of 1850, 27, 30–32, 73, 93–94 Compromise Tariff, 26 Constitutional Union Party, 35

B Baldwin, Henry, 96 Bank of the United States, 14, 15–18, 52 Baring, Alexander, 91–92 Bell, John, 35 Benton, Thomas Hart, 15 Biddle, Nicholas, 17, 18, 94 Brooks, Preston, 73 Brown, John, 73–74 Burr, Aaron, 86 Butler, Elizur, 96

116

cotton gin, 71–72 Crawford, William H., 36, 39–41, 85

D Dartmouth v. Woodward, 46 Democratic Party, 32–35 Democratic-Republican Party, 4, 35–37, 45, 48, 74 Dixiecrats, 75 Donelson, Rachael, 42 Douglas, Stephen A., 31–32, 34, 61 Douglass, Frederick, 72 Dowd, Charles, 62 Dred Scott v. Sandford, 73

E Eaton, Peggy, 44 education, 68 election of 1800, 86 election of 1820, 37–38 election of 1824, 11, 26, 36, 38–41, 85 election of 1828, 41–43 election of 1832, 18, 44–45 election of 1844, 55–56 electoral college, 5, 43, 86. See also specific elections Era of Good Feelings, 36, 37, 45–47 Erie Canal, 4, 19–20, 68, 77

F Federal Reserve System, 18 Federalist Party, 47–48 Fillmore, Millard, 31, 32, 79, 93, 95 Florida, 12–13 Force Act, 55 Free-Soil Party, 67, 73 Fremont, John C., 73 Fugitive Slave Law, 31, 73, 76 Fulton, Robert, 76

Nationalism

G gag rule, 11 Gibbons, Thomas, 76–77 Gibbons v. Ogden, 46, 76– 77, 92 Gilmer, George, 96 Greeley, Horace, 94

H Hamilton, Alexander, 16, 47, 57 Harrison, William Henry, 34, 84, 93, 95 Hartford Convention, 64–65

I Indian Removal Act, 7, 48– 51, 80–81 Indian Trade and Intercourse Act, 23 Interstate Commerce Commission, 63

J Jackson, Andrew about, 51–52 and American System, 15 and Bank of the United States, 14, 17–18 and the Democratic Party, 32–33 in election of 1824, 36, 39–41 in election of 1828, 41–43, 54, 58, 85 in election of 1832, 26, 44–45 and Florida, 12 Indian Removal Act of, 7, 48–51, 80–81 in War of 1812, 89–90 on Worcester v. Georgia, 97 Jay Treaty, 91 Jefferson, Thomas and Alien and Sedition Acts, 53–54, 64, 74 and Bank of the United States, 16 election of, 86 and Indian Removal Act, 48 Louisiana Purchase by, 6, 10, 12

and political parties, 35– 36, 47–48, 52 on slavery, 29–30 Johnson, Lyndon B., 75

K Kansas-Nebraska Act, 31–32, 34, 73 Kentucky Resolution, 53–54, 64, 74 Key, Francis Scott, 89 King, William R., 61 Know-Nothing Party, 67

L Liberty Party, 67 Lincoln, Abraham, 15, 18, 35, 61, 74, 94 Louisiana Purchase, 6, 10, 12

M Madison, James and Alien and Sedition Acts, 53–54, 64, 74 and Florida, 12 and political parties, 35– 36, 48 and War of 1812, 89 Mann, Horace, 68 Marshall, John, 23–25, 46, 96–97 Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 46 McCulloch v. Maryland, 46, 92 Mexican-American War, 6–7, 30, 56, 58, 67, 78 Missouri Compromise (Compromise of 1820), 26, 27–30, 37, 46, 67, 73, 76 Monroe, James, 29, 35–36, 37–38, 45–46, 51 Monroe Doctrine, 11, 45–46 Morrill, Justin, 59

N national anthem, 89 National Bank Act, 18 National Republican Party, 36, 41–42, 44–45, 52–53 Native Americans about, 7 and Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 23–26, 50

✪ 117

Indian Removal Act, 7, 48– 50, 80–81 Indian Trade and Intercourse Act, 23 Trail of Tears, 50, 79–83 and War of 1812, 88–89 Worcester v. Georgia, 96–97 New England Anti-Slavery Society, 65 The North River Steamer, 76 Northwest Ordinance, 71, 76 Noyes, John H., 69 nullification, 8, 19, 74–75 Nullification Crisis, 53–55, 65

O Ogden, Aaron, 76–77 Onis, Luis de, 13 Owen, Robert Dale, 69

P Pacific Railroad Act, 61 Panic of 1819, 16–17, 37, 39, 46, 54, 57 Panic of 1837, 22, 85 Panic of 1839, 95 Penn, William, 68 Pennsylvania, 20–21, 68 Perry, Matthew, 94 Pierce, Franklin, 95 Plessy v. Ferguson, 75 Plumer, William, 37 Poinsett, Joel, 83 political parties. See specific parties Polk, James K., 26, 55–57, 78, 95 popular sovereignty, 32 post offices, 33 protective tariffs, 57–59 public opinion polls, 39

R railroads, 4, 59–63, 68 Rapp, George, 69 religion, 47–48, 69, 73 Republican Party, 9, 67, 73 Ross, John, 80–81

S Scott, Winfield, 55, 81–82, 95

118

✪

Nationalism

secession, 8, 19, 35, 64–65, 75 Second Great Awakening, 69 sectionalism, 65–70 segregation, 75 Seventeenth Amendment, 87 slavery. See also Civil War; Compromise of 1820; Compromise of 1850 about, 7–9, 70–74 Democratic Party opposition over, 34–35 Henry Clay and, 25–26 John Calhoun on, 18–19 John Quincy Adams and, 11 and nullification doctrine, 55 and sectionalism, 66–67 and states’ rights, 75–76 Whig Party and, 95–96 Smith, Adam, 14 Smith, Joseph, 69 South Carolina, 53–55, 65 South Carolina Exposition and Protest (Calhoun), 54 Sparks, Jared, 91–92 spoils system, 33, 44, 52 Standard Time Act, 62 “The Star-Spangled Banner,” 89 states’ rights, 8, 74–76 steam engine, 59–60, 76–78 steamboats, 4, 76–78 Stowe, Harriet Beecher, 69, 73 Sumner, Charles, 73 Supreme Court, 46. See also specific cases

Abominations Tariff, 42, 53–55, 58 and American System, 14 Compromise Tariff, 26 and election 1828, 53 and election of 1824, 39 and election of 1828, 41 protective, 57–59 Taylor, Zachary, 31, 34, 56, 78–79, 95 temperance movement, 68, 94 Tenth Amendment, 74 territorial expansion, 6–7. See also Canada; Florida; Louisiana Purchase; Mexican-American War Texas, 6–7, 13, 56, 95 Thirteenth Amendment, 74 Thomas, Jesse, 29 three-fifths clause, 28, 70–71 time zones, 62 Trail of Tears, 50, 79–83 transportation. See canals; railroads; steamboats Treaty of Ghent, 10, 26, 89–91 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 7, 30, 56 Treaty of Hopewell, 23 Treaty of New Echota, 81–82 Treaty of Paris, 91 Trevithick, Richard, 59 Tubman, Harriet, 72 Turner, Nat, 72 Twelfth Amendment, 39–41, 86 Twenty-sixth Amendment, 87 Tyler, John, 84, 95

T

U

Tallmadge, James, 28 Tariff of 1824, 57–58 Tariff of 1828, 65 Tariff of 1832, 52, 54, 65 Tariff of Abominations, 42, 53–55, 58 tariffs of 1824, 57–58 of 1828, 65 of 1832, 52, 54, 65

Uncle Tom’s Cabin (Stowe), 69, 73 Underground Railroad, 72 Uniform Time Act, 62

V Van Buren, Martin, 33, 41, 44, 55–56, 84–86, 95 Vesey, Denmark, 72

Virginia Resolution, 53–54, 64, 74 Vivian, Andrew, 59 voting, 5, 36, 68, 86–88

W Walker, Robert, 58 War of 1812 about, 88–91 Andrew Jackson in, 51 and Democratic Republican Party, 48 onset of, 6 and secession, 64–65 and tariffs, 57 treaty ending, 10 Washington, D.C., 66 Washington, George, 15–16, 35, 47 Watt, James, 59, 76 The Wealth of Nations (Smith), 14 Webster, Daniel about, 92–94 and Compromise of 1850, 31 death of, 73 in election of 1836, 95 in Gibbons v. Ogden, 76–77 Webster-Ashburton Treaty, 84, 91–92, 93 and Whig Party, 94 Webster-Ashburton Treaty, 84, 91–92, 93 Whig Party about, 94–96 creation of, 4, 67 decline of, 73 and Democratic Party, 34 and National Republican Party, 53 and tariffs, 58 White, Hugh L., 95 Whitney, Eli, 71 Wirt, William, 44 Wool, John E., 81 Worcester, Samuel, 96 Worcester v. Georgia, 50, 96–97