Former Presidents that Returned to an Active Government Role.

 

Contemporary former presidents don’t return to public service, although some, like Bill Clinton, champion global causes. They write books, appear on television talk shows, and appear on the lecture circuit. Former presidents often spend their lives pursuing causes important to them such as Jimmy Carter through his Carter Center in Atlanta, or rehabilitate themselves as elder statesmen as in the case of Richard Nixon. But there were earlier presidents that returned to government service and often made a greater impact than they had as presidents.

 

John Quincy Adams Enters the House of Representatives

 

John Quincy Adams lost his bid for reelection in the Election of 1828. The campaign was rancorous and bitter. Adams refused to attend Andrew Jackson’s inauguration, returning to Massachusetts. He rejected an offer by the legislature to be appointed Senator but was elected in 1830 to the House of Representatives.

 

Adams achieved great success in his 17 years in the House. He was an advocate of abolition, fighting an 1836 House “gag rule” forbidding debate on anti-slavery petitions. He defended the Africans involved in the Amistad affair, arguing on their behalf in the Supreme Court. Adams is also chiefly responsible for the creation of the Smithsonian.

 

Adams opposed the policies of Andrew Jackson, supporting Henry Clay’s American System. He also opposed the annexation of Texas, declaring that the Constitution does not provide for the annexation of another republic. In this, his chief concerns may have focused on the expansion of slavery. As a Whig, he also voted against James Polk’s war declaration on Mexico.

 

William Howard Taft is Appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

 

In 1921, former President Taft was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by President Harding, a position he held until 1930. Like Adams, Taft had served only one term as president.

 

Elected in 1908 as the chosen heir of Teddy Roosevelt, Taft soon drifted from Roosevelt’s progressivism, forging alliances with stalwart Republicans in the Congress. In 1912, Roosevelt split the party when the GOP nominated Taft for a second term; Roosevelt formed the Progressive or “Bull Moose” Party.

 

Taft stated that he was appointed in June 1921 to “reverse a few decisions.” Historians view the Taft court as one of the most pro-business and conservative courts in the history of the federal judiciary. In one decision, Taft invalidated the 1919 Child Labor Tax Act. He died in his sleep in 1930 and was buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

 

Other Former Presidents Returned to Government Service

 

John Tyler, the “accidental president” who assumed office upon the death of William Henry Harrison in 1840, was not considered for reelection by the Whigs in 1844. But during the Civil War, he became a Virginia delegate to the Confederate Congress.

 

Abraham Lincoln’s second Vice-President, Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, became a pariah in his last two years as President, alienating the Radical Republicans and forced to endure the impeachment process. But after leaving the White House, the Tennessee legislature returned him to the U.S. Senate. Johnson, however, died before the new Congress convened.

 

The Presidency as the Pinnacle of Power

 

For a variety of reasons, former Presidents went into retirement or business after leaving office. Only Grover Cleveland won a second non-consecutive term in 1892. In many cases, the burdens of high office left former presidents sick as in the case of Woodrow Wilson. James K. Polk died shortly after leaving the White House.

 

Contemporary presidents especially disdain any notion of returning to government service, other than heading a special commission or acting as a “good-will” ambassador. The Carter Center pursues global justice and peace. Bill Clinton’s Global Initiative addresses, among other issues, women’s equality in the world while confronting human trafficking and abuse.

 

The contemporary presidency has global implications. Some pundits have suggested that, given the global impact of the person in the White House, the election of an American President should involve global participation. Leaving such an exalted office after four or eight years, Presidents are reluctant to return to the Congress or serve as a governor. The same is not true, however, for First Ladies.

 

Sources:

 

William A. DeGregorio, The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents From George Washington to George W. Bush (Gramercy Books, 2001)

Alfred H. Kelly and Winfred A. Harbison, The American Constitution: Its Origins & Development, fifth edition (W.W. Norton & Company, 1976)

Published November 13, 2010 in Suite101 by M.Streich. copyright

Henry Clay: Great American Political Giant who was Forever Attempting to become President!

 Henry Clay attempted the Presidency three times yet each time he miscalculated the mood of the American people. In 1824 he came in last in a four-way race; building his campaign on Andrew Jackson’s Bank Veto in 1832, Clay failed to realize that voters saw the veto as an extension of Jackson’s heroic nature and champion of the common man. Finally, in 1844, Clay’s “waffling” on the issue of Texas annexation caused enough voters in the North to switch their support to James Birney and the new Liberty Party, costing him crucial swing states.

 

The 1824 Election

 

When the results of the 1824 election were tabulated, Henry Clay was in fourth place with 37 electoral votes. Although no candidate received enough electoral votes to win the presidency, John Quincy Adams would be selected by a vote in the House of Representatives. As Speaker of the House, Henry Clay played a pivotal role in denying Andrew Jackson the presidency. Jackson, with 99 electoral votes and almost three times the popular votes of Clay and William Crawford, would never forget Clay’s role in the so-called “corrupt bargain.”

 

1832 and the Bank of the United States

 

President Andrew Jackson rejected a premature rechartering of the SBUS

(Second Bank of the US) in 1832 after Henry Clay convinced bank President Nicholas Biddle to seek a new charter. It was the issue Clay hoped would bring him into the White House. Portraying Jackson as a despotic tyrant and recalling the images of George III, Clay and his followers believed that the voters would agree and retire Jackson.

 

Jackson, however, was seen as a man of the people, a hero who championed the cause of simple, hard working Americans. Jackson, who hated all banks, saw the national bank as the “great whore of Babylon.” Everywhere he went, everyday people cheered him as their advocate. The bank issue backfired. According to Paul Boller, “For the first time in American history a President took a strong stand on an important social issue and then asked for the approval of the voters at the polls.” [1]

 

The Annexation of Texas and the 1844 Election

 

The annexation of Texas was the chief issue in the 1844 election. Democrat James K Polk favored annexation. Significantly, Polk’s stance was based on his sincere views favoring immediate expansionism. Polk wanted to unite the nation between both oceans, assert American claims in the Oregon Territory, and bring Texas into the Union.

 

Henry Clay, however, viewed the issue in terms of his own presidential ambitions. At first, Clay opposed Texas annexation, gambling on the Northern vote. Northern voters, for the most part, rejected the idea of bringing in another slave state. Sensing that his chance of victory might be better if he switched positions, Clay came out for annexation. This cost him crucial Northern votes.

 

Page Smith [2] gives an interesting analysis of the 1844 vote. Polk won the election with less than 1 percent of the popular vote, yet in pivotal states like Ohio, James Birney, the antislavery candidate, polled over 8,000 votes. In Pennsylvania Polk won “by a bare 6,000 votes out of more than 328,000 cast.” Birney’s total in the election was 62,300. Had Clay not switched his position on Texas, many of the Birney votes might have gone to him.

 

Although Henry Clay never became President, his long political career left an indelible mark on American History. Returned to the National Senate in 1850, Clay would endeavor to craft a final compromise designed to avert Civil War. For this he was vilified by many Southerners.

 

Sources:

 

[1] Page Smith, The Nation Comes of Age: A People’s History of the Ante-Bellum Years (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981) p. 207.

[2] Paul F. Boller, Jr. Presidential Campaigns From George Washington to George W. Bush (Oxford University Press, 2004) p. 53.

published 12/22/2008 inSuite101 by M.Streich. copyright.

The Shakers: A Successful Utopian Community in the early American Republic

In 1774 Mother Ann Lee, founder of the Shakers, led a small group of followers from England to the American colonies. Although she died in 1784, her movement endured and grew during the early nineteenth-century, leaving a rich legacy of music, artifacts, and a unique work ethic. The United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing, as the movement was formally known, sought to experience what they called “authentic Christianity.”

 

The Beginning of the Shaker Movement

 

Ann Lee was a factory girl in Manchester, England. After the deaths of her four infant children, she began to receive visions. Leading a movement out of the Quaker faith, her followers experienced intense physical demonstrations of personal spiritual emotionalism, earning them the name of “shaking Quakers” or “Shakers.” For the believers, Mother Ann was a female prophet possessing extraordinary spiritual powers.

 

Shakers believed in celibacy. Shaker communities separated male and female followers yet grew by taking in orphans as well as entire families. Orphans were loved and cared for within the Shaker community and upon reaching adulthood could decide to remain as permanent members of the community or go back into “the world.” Shakers were pacifists, even refusing to be drafted during the Civil War.

 

Communal and apocalyptic, Shakers attracted members of other revivalist groups such as the Free Will Baptists and the New Light Baptists. Mother Ann taught that the Shakerism represented the link between what she called the “earthly space” and the “heavenly space.” Later Shakers, during the Panic of 1837, emphasized trances and visions, incorporating spiritualist elements, such as communication with those who had died.

 

Shaker Innovations and Folk Music

 

Within their over twenty enclaves, the Shakers established fully self-sufficient communities. Shaker communities were clean, simple, and designed for utility. Hard workers, the Shakers introduced innovations like the clothes pin, the flat broom, and the circular saw. They designed clothing fabric that was water resistant. Shaker furniture was simple yet carried certain elegance in line with the Shaker’s view of doing everything to the glory of God.

 

Perhaps the most enduring Shaker tune is “Simple Gifts,” popularized by Aaron Copland’s 1944 Appalachian Spring. The Shakers wrote thousands of songs, many coming out of their worship practices that featured ritual dancing.

 

Decline of the Shakers

 

As the United States entered into the Industrial era after the Civil War, Shaker community began to decline. Factories produced mass products and people bought fewer Shaker hand-made products. Society in general rejected the type of communal living represented by the austere Shakers. In earlier years before the Civil War, particularly during the period of the Second Great Awakening and the Panic of 1837, desperate people seeking a deeper meaning to life had flocked to Utopian communities like the Shakers, but that had changed.

 

The Shakers sought to establish perfection in a world that was, by Shaker definition, imperfect. Shaker communities could not survive in a modern society that encroached upon their communities. Fewer converts and the greater inability to sustain their communities forced the closure of most of the communities. The Shaker legacy remains, however, as a rich part of American cultural, social, and religious history.

 

Sources:

 

Brian J. L. Berry, America’s Utopian Experiments: Communal Havens From Long-Wave Crises (Dartmouth College: University Press of New England, 1992).

Doris Faber, The Perfect Life: The Shakers in America (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1974).

Richard Francis, Ann the Word: The Story of Ann Lee, Female Messiah, Mother of the Shakers, The Woman Clothed With the Sun (New York: Arcade Publishing, 2001).

Page Smith, The Nation Comes of Age: A People’s History of the Ante-Bellum Years (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1981).

Published February 4, 2009 by M.Streich in Suite101. Copyright

The Election of 1840: Rise of the Whig Party

 

The Presidential Election of 1840 is often reduced to the campaign slogan “Tippecanoe and Tyler, too.” The newly emerged Whig Party, led by popular figures such as Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, fought for the opportunity to send Martin Van Buren back to New York. Unfortunately, a series of events and non-issues conspired to make General William Henry Harrison the Whig frontrunner.

 

Portraying the Democrats as Insensitive Spenders

 

While Whigs portrayed Democrats as “pampered office holders,” they reintroduced their mid-western hero as a hard-drinking Indian fighter of modest means who lived in a log cabin. Building on the Jackson legend precisely to deny his heir apparent Van Buren, the Whigs managed to set aside real campaign issues, focusing instead on the wealthy and aristocratic Van Buren who had the audacity to ask Congress for an appropriation of $3,665 for White House expenditures while millions of Americans were struggling to find work and put food on the table.

 

Martin Van Burn became President in 1837 after serving as Andrew Jackson’s Vice-President. Van Buren inherited the Panic of 1837, the most significant economic downturn in the new nation since the need for a Constitution Convention in 1787, as well as the enmity of John C Calhoun and Henry Clay. Clay, who desperately wanted the 1840 nomination, reminded his listeners of, “…the heart rending wretchedness of thousands of the working class out of employment.”

 

To Southerners, Van Buren was an untrustworthy eastern establishment type whose lifestyle was compared to the monarchs of Europe. If Jackson was seen as “King Andrew” in political cartoons of the day, Van Buren was the crown prince who had turned the White House into a palace featuring sumptuous state dinners the average American could only dream about.

 

Van Buren’s pretentions were dramatically elucidated by Congressman Charles Ogle. Ogle’s congressional speech of April 14, 1840 was titled, “The Regal Splendor of the President’s Palace.” Van Buren, however, was a self-made man whose father had been a farmer and tavern keeper in Kinderhook, New York. His ancestors had arrived from Europe in the early seventeenth century as indentured servants.

 

Ignoring More Important Issues

 

Van Buren made his mark as a skillful orator and a superb organizer. There was a reason he was dubbed the “Little Magician.” His support of Andrew Jackson earned him the Vice Presidency in 1833 and Jackson’s nod in 1836 when Van Buren won the presidential election, facing a number of sectional candidates from the new Whig Party who were attempting to duplicate the 1824 presidential election by throwing the results to the House of Representatives.

 

In 1840, the chief issues were the national economy and Van Buren’s supposed indifference to the plight of unemployed and impoverished Americans. At the same time, the Whig Party championed the frontier-roots of Harrison. Real issues such as growing abolitionist concerns, the annexation of Texas, and tariffs remained in the background. By 1840, more Americans than ever before had the franchise and most of them voted on the basis of rallies, parades, and stories like Congressman Ogle’s displeasure with Van Buren’s request for $3,665 for White House expenses.

 

Van Buren lost the 1840 election but Harrison died thirty days after his inauguration, allowing John Tyler to become the first “accidental” president. Ironically, Tyler disagreed with the Whigs, alienating his only support group. Van Buren did not go quietly, returning in 1844 in a vain attempt to secure the Democratic Party nomination.

 

References:

 

Paul F. Boller, Jr., Presidential Campaigns From George Washington to George W. Bush (Oxford University Press, 2004)

Webb Garrison, A Treasury of White House Tales (Rutledge Hill Press, 1989)

Michael F. Holt, The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party: Jacksonian Politics and the Onset of the Civil War (Oxford University Press, 1999)

Page Smith, The Nation Comes of Age: A People’s History of the Ante-Bellum Years, Volume Four (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981)

Published April 12, 2012 in Decoded Past by M.Streich. copyright

The Panic of 1837

 

The presidential election of 1836 brought Martin Van Buren into the White House. Van Buren, the heir-apparent of the outgoing Andrew Jackson, had been a staunch supporter of Jackson’s policies. Some of these policies, notably Jackson’s war on the Second Bank of the United States, had, however, the unfortunate consequence of driving the American economy into the worst financial depression it had ever experienced. This was the Panic of 1837, the effects of which would doom Van Buren to one term as president and have profound effects on American commercial growth and solidarity.

 

Bank Failures Caused by Reckless Speculation Led to the Recession

 

The “Panic” or recession that became full blown after Van Buren was inaugurated in March 1837 was precipitated by the failures of several prominent banks. This growing downturn was also felt in Britain, whose financial institutions were tied to large Northeastern banks and who had invested heavily in emerging American markets and enterprises.

 

Jackson’s shifting of government funds from the virtually defunct National Bank to smaller, regional “pet” banks caused widespread credit over-extension as well as rampant speculation. The Species Circular, which mandated that all land sales be finalized in gold or silver, devalued the currency and created national inflation.

 

Bank runs shuttered many venerable old banks and many of the newly emerging millionaires – “Monopolists” and “Extortioners” as labeled by the working class, found themselves penniless.

 

The State of the National Economy during the Panic of 1837

 

As banks failed, the stock market fell. Bankruptcies rose as did the unemployment rate. In the South, the price of cotton fell while prices for agricultural products rose throughout much of the country.

 

In the large urban centers, charitable organizations set up soup kitchens for the poor while angry mobs broke into warehouses, stealing barrels of flour. Fuel costs also rose after thousands of Pennsylvania coal miners were left unemployed following the closure of mines.

 

The Political Response to the Panic of 1837

 

President Van Buren refused to resurrect the National Bank or rescind the Species Circular. Calling a special session of Congress to meet in September 1837, Van Buren advocated legislation to reform and standardize bankruptcy laws and to create a “Sub-Treasury” to oversee banking activity under the direction of the Treasury Secretary.

 

The recession, however, had the greater political effect of strengthening the recently formed Whig Party which gained greater strength both on the state and national level following the 1838 mid-term election.

 

Hatred of the Jackson-Van Buren policies brought together a number of normally disparate groups like the Anti-Masons, antislavery men, conservative-minded Democrats, and Jackson-haters. This coalition would enable the Whig Party to triumph in 1840 with the election of William Henry Harrison and control of both houses of Congress.

 

Other Effects of the Great Recession of 1837

 

Throughout American history, difficult times of uncertainty and economic tribulation frequently led to spiritual revivalism. Refocusing on God was the evangelical answer to the greed that had caused economic travails. The Revival of 1857, for example, coincided with another national “panic” or recession.

 

Many distressed and disillusioned Americans turned to communal religious groups like the Shakers and Mormons, or joined one of the many Utopian movements and communities formed to provide deeper spiritual and human experiences. This was the period of millennial revivalism, heightening the expectation of Christ’s return.

 

Whether in religious or social terms, the word “reform” seemed the antidote to the economic woes of the nation as well as the devastating cholera epidemic that had gripped many urban communities.

 

The Cyclical Model of Boom and Bust Periods

 

The Panic of 1837 helped to reinforce later conclusions that American capitalism was subject to frequent “busts,” often caused by one unforeseen event that sent the entire system cascading downward. The “boom” periods, however, always lasted longer, contributing to the assumption that at some point a growing national economy would become strong enough to withstand minor corrections on its way toward Utopian prosperity. This view ended with the Great Depression.

 

The Panic of 1837 was the product of Jacksonian policies, carried out by Martin Van Buren. It ensured Van Buren would be a one-term president. The effects were felt by all of society but primarily by poor workers and a fledgling middleclass that saw its savings disappear with bank failures. The recession also refocused individual American priorities, leading to a spirit of revivalism that helped strengthen the Second Great Awakening.

 

Sources:

 

Paul F. Boller, Jr., Presidential Campaigns From George Washington to George W, Bush (Oxford University Press, 2004)

Michael F. Holt, The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party: Jacksonian Politics and the Onset of the Civil War (Oxford University Press, 1999)

Charles McGrane, The Panic of 1837 (University of Chicago Press, 1965)

Page Smith, The Nation Comes of Age: A People’s History of the Ante-Bellum Years, Volume Four (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981)

Published October 21,2010 in Suite101 by M.Streich.Copyright

Judicial Nationalism in the Early Republic: Fletcher v Peck

 

The protection of property rights by government has been a fundamental aspect of personal liberties since the founding of the United States. Even before the existence of federal statutes passed after the forming of the Republic, English common law protected property rights through the Doctrine of Vested Rights. In 1810, the Supreme Court, under the leadership of John Marshall, upheld property rights in the case Fletcher v Peck. The court’s rationale was based on the contract clause in Article 1, Section 10, and paragraph 1 of the Constitution.

 

The Georgia Yazoo Land Fraud Case

 

Fletcher v Peck dated to a measure passed by the Georgia state legislature in 1795. Georgia legislators, tied to bribes offered by land companies, granted millions of acres of public land. Subsequent to the Georgia law, these land companies sold plots of land to innocent third parties.

 

During the next legislative session, however, Georgia law-makers passed another measure rescinding the original land grants. Innocent third parties found themselves without a remedy and the land companies argued that the original Georgia law amounted to a legal contract.

 

The Marshall Court Voids the Georgia Law Rescinding the Land Grant

 

Article 1, Section 10 declares that, “No state shall…pass any…ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the obligation of Contracts…” Chief Justice John Marshall, in his opinion, broadly interpreted this clause in applying it to the Georgia law rescinding the land grant. He did not, however, address the issue of bribery.

 

By applying the contract clause to states, some Constitutional scholars believe that Marshall was going beyond the scope of what the Founding Fathers intended, namely the contractual obligations between private individuals. In this case, however, Marshall used the Constitutional contract clause to uphold property rights.

 

Fletcher v Peck and the Spirit of Judicial Nationalism

 

The Marshall Court is often equated with the notion of Judicial Nationalism. Fletcher v Peck represented the first time the high court claimed jurisdiction over state laws, subjecting such laws to Constitutional scrutiny. Although using some of the same principles that defined the English Doctrine of Vested Rights, the court’s decision in Fletcher did not intend to weaken legislative power at the expense of the federal judiciary.

 

Marshall, a Federalist, believed strongly that the new central government under the Constitution existed to ensure personal liberties and this included property rights. The Georgia law that was declared unconstitutional represented a legislative abuse of private property.

 

States’ Rights Advocates Resisted the Decision

 

Republican-Democrats that followed Thomas Jefferson’s strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution viewed the Fletcher case as an infringement on states’ rights. For them, the broader picture envisioned a strong central government that arbitrarily interfered in the affairs of individual states.

 

Similar arguments, usually originating in Southern states, involved federal tariff laws as well as the power and influence of the national bank, tested by the Marshall Court in the 1819 case McCulloch v Maryland. States’ rights would ultimately lead to the nullification crisis and play a part in the decision by Southern states to leave the Union, beginning with South Carolina in December 1860.

 

Private Property Protected in the US Constitution

 

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states that, “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” In the post-modern society of the 21^st Century, however, such protections face new challenges, notably by communities seeking to revitalize blighted neighborhoods.

 

In the 2005 case Kelo et al. v City of New London et al., the Supreme Court affirmed a Connecticut Supreme Court decision that allowed for the municipal condemnation of private properties in order to build complexes that, in the long run, served public policy and increased community revenues. Today, property owners must contend with issues of “eminent domain” abuse.

 

Under English civil law that functioned for hundreds of years before the first English colonies were established in North America, a person’s home was his castle. This was the very essence of private property protection. Building upon that principle, John Marshall used the contract clause to further uphold private property rights, interpreting broadly Constitutional provisions.

 

Sources:

 

Edward Samuel Corwin, John Marshall and the Constitution: A Chronicle of the Supreme Court (Nabu Press, 2010)

Findlaw on-line

Alfred H. Kelly and Winfred A. Harbison, The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development, 5^th edition (W. W. Norton & Company, 1976)

Francis N. Stites, John Marshall: Defender of the Constitution (Longman, 1997)

10/4/2010 in Suite101 by M.Streich, copyright

Trail of Tears: Jackson's Legacy of Hatred

 

By the time Andrew Jackson won the 1828 presidential election, the Cherokee people, living primarily in Georgia, had adopted the ways of their white neighbors, even to the extent of utilizing Africans for plantation slave labor. As a separate community within Georgia, established by earlier treaties that gave land rights to the Cherokee “forever,” the Indian nation had become transformed into an agricultural society. None of this mattered, however, to the new president whose first message to Congress in 1829 called for removal of all indigenous people to lands beyond the Mississippi. For the Cherokee, the result was the Trail of Tears.

 

The Cherokee Nation in 1828

 

Christian missionaries worked tirelessly with the Cherokee to facilitate their absorption into a white community. Cherokee children attended schools and learned to read their own language following the development of an alphabet or “syllabary.” Women worked at looms while men tended the farms. The Cherokee Phoenix, first published in 1828, provided news.

 

Their homes were made of logs, much like the white farmers, and wealthy Cherokee could afford grander dwellings that were modeled on the proto-plantation dwellings of larger estates. Over 1,200 slaves were owned by wealthy Cherokee farmers. At the time President Jackson determined to remove them to Oklahoma, the Cherokee had put into a place a constitution that was modeled on the federal Constitution.

 

In 1828, gold was discovered on Cherokee land. Speculators poured into the area, creating conflict that frequently ignited into violence. The Georgia legislature passed laws extending its state sovereignty into Cherokee lands, in clear violation of earlier treaties. Some Cherokees, seeing the inevitable result, began to voluntarily leave for lands beyond the Mississippi.

 

Court Challenges to Indian Removal

 

In 1831, the first challenge to Georgia was brought before the Supreme Court in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. The court, under the leadership of John Marshall, dismissed the case on grounds of jurisdiction. Marshall’s opinion, however, left open the door to further challenges.

 

This came in 1832 in the case Worcester v. Georgia in which Samuel Worcester, a missionary, challenged the state’s right to require a license of any non-Cherokee to live and work in Cherokee lands. This time, the court heard the case and ruled against the state of Georgia. President Jackson, however, refused to uphold the court’s decision and ordered the army into the state to forcibly remove the Cherokee. This was the beginning of the Trail of Tears.

 

Jackson’s Military Response

 

In his first message to Congress, December 6, 1831, the president elaborated on the need for Indian removal. “This emigration should be voluntary: for it would be as cruel and unjust to compel the aborigines to abandon the graves of their fathers, and seek a home in a distant land.” By 1838, however, this was no longer the presidential view.

 

General Winfield Scott arrived in Georgia where the army proceeded to round up Cherokee and place them into hastily constructed stockades. These primitive conditions directly resulted in the deaths of 2,500 Indians. The subsequent forced march – the Trail of Tears, took many more lives. According to army records, 13,149 Cherokee began the journey, but only 11,504 survived. Many more died once they arrived in Oklahoma from disease, deprivation, and inter-tribal hostilities.

 

Cherokees Remaining in the East

 

The most sizeable portion of remaining Cherokee lived in the North Carolina mountains on land few whites were interested in. Over time, these Cherokee developed a modern tourist destination and have built a casino and first-class hotels. Maggie Valley, North Carolina is visited by tens of thousands of people every year.

 

The historical legacy of the Trail of Tears, however, stands as an atrocity and tarnishes the image of a president often considered one of the greatest. Ironically, the same voices that preached abolition were often silent when it came to the treatment of Native Americans.

 

Sources:

 

Frederick Merk, History of the Westward Movement (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978)

Page Smith, The Nation Comes of Age: A People’s History of the Ante-Bellum Years Volume Four (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981)

Russell Thornton, The Cherokees: A Population History (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1990)

First published 9/22/2009 in Suite101 by M.Streich, copyright

Jacksonian Democracy

 

The Jacksonian Era is often identified with the political rise of the common man in America, representing a time of significant changes in political participation affecting more voters than ever before. In the years preceding Jackson’s election to the presidency in 1828, laws were changed allowing all male citizens to vote, not just those with property.

 

Additionally, Jackson himself characterized the common man, a product of the frontier who despised the trappings of wealthy establishment power brokers. For the first time in American history, Jackson’s leadership and policies helped to usher in a “general equality of condition among peoples…” according to Alexis de Tocqueville.

 

Andrew Jackson as the Champion of the Common Man

 

Jackson was recognized as a leader among everyday Americans before he took the oath of office, a fact demonstrated by the more than 20,000 people, mostly from the newly emerging states, that came to Washington City for the inauguration. Their arrival, according to the scions of the Virginia Dynasty circle, was compared to the invasion of Rome by the barbarians.

 

One of Jackson’s goals was to kill the Bank of the United States, rechartered after the War of 1812. Jackson’s hatred of banks was partly traced to losses he suffered as a younger man when banks failed. For Jackson, the national bank was the “great whore of Babylon” and he identified it with the bankers and financiers that made fortunes manipulating the poor. His reelection bid in 1836 was a national referendum on the bank and he won.

 

Although it was an age of democracy, it was, as de Tocqueville put it, “wild” democracy, exacerbated by the economic highs and the lows, the cycles between profit and panic. In 1945, New Deal historian Arthur Schlesinger published The Age of Jackson. In many ways, Franklin Roosevelt was an archetype of Schlesinger’s Jackson. Both men appealed strongly to the common man; both men had powerful enemies among the political, religious, and social elites.

 

Jackson’s Religious Conviction and Deep Morals

 

John Quincy Adams, the preceding president, had been a Unitarian. Jackson’s religious beliefs were born out of frontier evangelical revivalism. He freely quoted the scriptures and had a literal interpretation of the Bible. His speeches and letters – even his outbursts, are peppered with Biblical references. Yet, as historian James Morone points out, these convictions did not extend to Native Americans or to slaves. In some ways a paradox, Morone writes that “rising democracy unleashed racial demons” and “…pushed a…genocidal Indian war…”

 

This was the great contradiction between the frenzy of democracy and the realities of American life. It would be a contradiction lasting throughout the century. While the Civil War amendments to the Constitution granted freedom from slavery and political rights, they ignored social equality. Abraham Lincoln was one of the few to see this and used the age of Jackson to illustrate the contradiction.

 

The Blueprints of Expanding Democracy

 

Jacksonian democracy ushered in the extensive use of newspapers that spoke for politicians and swayed the public. Candidates and parties frequently bought newspapers for this purpose. National nominating conventions, campaign managers, and strong political machines developed. The Jackson years fostered a two-party system that is still there today. Additionally, increased political awareness by everyday Americans frequently caused the birth of third parties, usually devoted to single issues.

 

De Tocqueville traced the democratic phenomenon to the town meetings of New England. Even in 2009, this aspect of democracy in action has been seen to play a significant role in conveying constituent concerns to members of Congress. Further, the expansion of democracy was tied to individualism, a singular feature of American life. Jacksonian democracy gave Americans a long-lasting foundation toward building, ultimately, the most inclusive and egalitarian society on earth.

 

Sources:

 

James A. Morone, Hellfire Nation: The Politics of Sin in American History (Yale University Press, 2003)

Page Smith, The Nation Comes of Age: A People’s History of the Ante-Bellum Years, Volume Four (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981)

October 13, 2009, M.Streich, Suite101, copyright

Articles Pertinent to the Jackson Era:

Jackson's Bank Veto Message

 

What would Andrew Jackson have said to the evasive and frequently arrogant Goldman Sachs executives that took a drubbing during a U.S. Senate hearing in April 2010 about their financial practices? Among other practices, Goldman sold doomed mortgage packages to investors but labeled them triple-A. Purchased by pension fund managers and others that relied on the good name and judgment of Goldman, many Americans lost millions when the scheme crashed, contributing to the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. Goldman executives walked away with millions in bonuses.

 

Andrew Jackson’s Bank Veto Message

 

In 1832, Andrew Jackson sent a veto message to the U.S. Senate, refusing to permit the re-chartering of the Second Bank of the United States. Although his July 10^th message highlighted numerous reasons for the veto – including the substantial investments of foreigners “mostly of Great Britain,” Jackson’s primary complaint was that the bank did not serve the “liberties of the people” but catered to a wealthy few – “…some of our own opulent citizens.”

 

At the end of his lengthy message, Jackson asserts that, “It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes.” Government did not exist to make the rich richer at the expense of hard working Americans, the “humble members of society.”

 

According to Jackson, equal protection was not a bendable construct: “there are no necessary evils in government.” He further maintains that, “Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress.”

 

Andrew Jackson’s Early Experiences with Bank Speculation

 

Critics of Jackson argue that he was influenced by his impoverished youth and early adult years that he lost money due to earlier bank failures that resulted in financial speculation, and that his common background clashed with the so-called Virginia Dynasty as well as the financial plutocrats of industry and finance.

 

Jackson, however, was proud of his background and saw himself as a man of the people. Jackson owned a plantation in Tennessee, his “Hermitage,” but his personal wealth and success had been accomplished by the sweat of his brow and the American work ethic, part of a Biblical injunction Jackson took literally.

 

Jackson Identified with the Everyday Common Man

 

Although a wealthy man himself – owning hundreds of slaves, he never forgot those Americans that gave him the popular vote in the election of 1824 (an election decided by the House of Representatives because no candidate received the necessary electoral votes) or the popular support he received in 1828.

 

He was also keenly aware that his enemies, the bank supporters and northeastern money interests, viewed him as an illiterate frontier interloper. When Harvard University conferred an honorary degree on Jackson, John Quincy Adams angrily wrote the college trustees threatening to send back his earned degree.

 

Jackson’s Message Today Would Hold Banks Accountable

 

How would Jackson deal with Goldman Sachs if he were alive today? His chastening would have included Biblical invectives (he referred to the Bank of the U.S. as the “whore of Babylon.”). Above all, he would have challenged the Congress to respond to the American people, to restore the liberties of the people, and to demand truth and accountability from the perpetrators of financial ruin affecting millions of common, hard working citizens.

 

Sources:

 

Text of Andrew Jackson’s Veto Message, The Avalon Project, Yale University

Page Smith, The Nation Comes of Age: A People’s History of the Ante-Bellum Years, Volume Four (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981)

First Published October 17, 2010 in Suite101 by M.Streich. Copyright

To What Extent Did the "Tariff" Cause the American Civil War?

 

Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonald issued a proclamation declaring April “Confederate History Month.” After much criticism for excluding slavery, the governor amended the Proclamation stating that it was a “major omission.” (Anita Kumar, Washington Post, April 8, 2010) The amended Proclamation asserts that slavery was the cause of the American Civil War. Causes of the war are often attributed to other, tangential issues such as differing views on the Constitution, “states’ rights” versus federalism, and the tariff. In analyzing the tariff issue, however, it is apparent that this was not a direct cause of the Civil War.

 

The Election of 1860

 

Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 presidential election, but without a popular mandate. Lincoln received less than 40 percent of the popular vote, although his popular vote in Northern states was 54 percent. Analysts point to the role of Pennsylvania with 27 electoral votes. Pennsylvania was viewed as a Democrat state; the sitting President, James Buchanan, was from Pennsylvania. But in 1860 Pennsylvania voted for the Republican candidate, partly because of the Tariff of 1857. Although unfounded, this tariff was blamed for the Panic of 1857.

 

There were 303 electoral votes in play in 1860. Lincoln obtained 180. If Pennsylvania had voted for someone other than Lincoln, his electoral vote tally would have been 153, two more than the necessary 151. New Jersey split its electoral vote in 1860, giving Lincoln 4 and Stephen Douglas 3. This conforms to the House vote on the 1857 tariff: northern New Jersey representatives voted for the tariff but southern New Jersey representatives voted against it.

 

The Tariff of 1857

 

The Tariff of 1857 was a low tariff measure supported by the South as well as several northern constituencies. The late Harvard historian Frederick Merk referred to the tariff as “almost a free trade measure.” Even New England supported the tariff. The tariff, however, hurt the sheep growing interests in Pennsylvania and Ohio by putting woolen goods on the free list.

 

Although the ensuing Panic of 1857 was not caused by the new tariff schedules, the emerging Republican Party propagandized the issue. Iron industries in Pennsylvania were particularly hurt by the 1857 economic decline. By 1860, “Pennsylvania abandoned its ancient allegiance to the Democratic Party…and it moved into Republican ranks,” according to Merk. Although the 1860 Republican Party Platform did not mention the tariff, the issue helped Lincoln to capture enough electoral votes to be declared President.

 

Tariffs Affected Sectional Concerns

 

Pre-Civil War tariffs, dating back to the Jefferson Administration, affected the South differently. Several tariff measures passed in these years benefitted vital industries in the Southwest while hurting the mono-agriculture of the Southeast. Congressional votes on tariffs verify this. States opposed to high tariff schedules tended to rely on cotton as their major source of revenue.

 

Yet when cotton prices fell, it was not the effects of higher tariffs. Over-production caused severe declines in cotton revenues. On the eve of the Civil War, for example, Britain – the largest export market, had two years worth of cotton stockpiled in warehouses.

 

Did the Tariff Cause the Civil War?

 

Tariffs were tangential to the chief cause of the Civil War: the Southern institution of slavery. From all documented sources – including the writings of the South’s chief apologist John C. Calhoun, slavery was the primary issue of contention between the North and the South. Cotton, the chief cash crop for the South, would never have been profitable but for slave labor. Tariffs were always an issue, notably in states like South Carolina, but the repeated calls for secession in the 1850s were always related to slavery.

 

References:

 

Michael F. Holt, The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party: Jacksonian Politics and the Onset of the Civil War (Oxford University Press, 1999)

Frederick Merk, History of the Westward Movement (Alfred A. Knopf, 1978)

Page Smith, The Nation Comes of Age: A People’s History of the Ante-Bellum Years (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981)

Published in Suite101 by M.Streich April 11, 2010, copyright

American Colonial Protectionist Trade Issues: Lessons for the Future Nation?

 

The English commercial relationship with the North American colonies has often been cited as one of friction, contributing to the break between the colonies and the mother country. This break led to the American War for Independence and patriot victory. Trade patterns and commercial statistics, however, reveal that the trade relationship was consistent in the years before the conflict and, in many cases, lucrative for American merchants, planters, and those involved in manufacturing.

 

English Imports and Exports in the First Half of the 18^th Century

 

During the first fifty years of the 18^th Century, the only trade figures in terms of imports and exports that remained constant in English trade patterns were with the American colonies. In 1700, 6% of all English imports came from North America; in 1750, that figure rose to 11%. In 1700 English exports to the North American colonies stood at 6%, rising to 11% in 1750. Such consistency was not the case for imports and exports to other geographic regions,

 

In 1700, for example, 66% of all English imports originated in Europe. This figure fell to 55% in 1750. The deficiency can be attributed to English imports coming from the East Indies, North America, and the West Indies by 1750. In fact, West Indies goods increased 5% over a fifty year period, attesting to the growing diversity of the import/export trade as the English began to forge a global trade empire.

 

The same can be said for English exports. Exports to Europe fell from 85% to 77% by 1750 while the largest gain in exports was in North America by 5%, followed by the East Indies 3%. Part of this increase can be attributed to a growing North American population. In 1700, the estimated population in the American colonies was 250,888. This figure grew to 1,179,760 by 1750.

 

Advancing the Mercantilist System Provided Profits and Continuity

 

Professor Oliver Dickerson argues that, “The trade of the Empire was discovered to be an economic whole with a complicated mass of legal regulation.” The chief end of these measures was to “encourage British trade and commerce.” Dickerson cites, as an example, the introduction of naval stores in the Southern colonies as an industry designed to benefit both the colonies and England.

 

Prior to 1700, naval stores had been purchased from the Baltic region, not part of the English system. Naval stores included such commodities as tar, pitch, and hemp, all essential in servicing ships. By introducing these industries to the colonies and levying high tariffs on the Baltic products, profits were retained within the mercantilist system. Further, England paid colonial producers bounties in order to make the production more appealing.

 

Many “enumerated” goods included bounties or subsidies paid above the value of the commodity, such as tobacco. Such financial enhancements were discontinued, however, with over-production and the depression of prices. George Washington, for example, invested heavily in tobacco only to accumulate high debts when prices fell, forcing him to convert land on his Mount Vernon estate to other crops.

 

End of the Protectionist Trade System

 

By 1764 England, attempting to payoff huge debts associated with the Seven Years’ War altered the previously consistent trade regulations associated with the Navigation Acts. Dickerson, for example, states that these policy changes were accomplished for “the sake of revenue and political exploitation.” Other historians of the colonial period agree with this assessment.

 

Thus, the original regulations attached to decades-old Navigation Acts were not to blame for the revolution. It can even be argued that they benefitted the colonies and made many Americans wealthy, increasing the colonial standard of living. Rather, if the commercial policies are to used as a cause for the revolution, it was their subversion by various English treasury ministers that brought about conflict.

 

The American Revolution ended colonial participation in the intricate trade system of Britain. In some cases, certain lucrative enterprises were lost, such as tobacco, rice, and naval stores. Tobacco, in many cases, was replaced by cotton, which turned out to be fortuitous because increased cotton cultivation in the South coincided with a growing English need for cotton.

 

Economic historian David Landes, for example, writes that in 1760 “Britain imported some 2 ½ million pounds of raw cotton…” and that by 1787, this increased to 22 million pounds. Although Britain imported cotton in the 19^th century from India, the West Indies, and Egypt, American cotton was considered superior.

 

The Trade Relationship with the English Colonies

 

The English-colonial trade relationship functioned well in the years before the regulatory policy changes that focused on revenue collection. Although it can be argued that these pre-revolutionary taxes were justified, albeit ill-conceived, they led to the revolution which ultimately destroyed that trade relationship.

 

Sources:

 

Carlo M. Cipolla, Before the Industrial Revolution (W.W. Norton, 1994)

Oliver M. Dickerson, The Navigation Acts and the American Revolution (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1951)

David S. Landes, The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present (Cambridge University Press, 1969)

Published August 25, 2010 by M.Streich, copyright

The Tariff of Abominations: A Lesson in Economic Blackmail and Propaganda 

 

In 1828 the Congress passed an import tax measure that came to be called the “Tariff of Abominations.” Contrived by the supporters of Andrew Jackson to embarrass the presidency of John Quincy Adams, the measure, according to John Randolph of Virginia, was designed less to support manufactures, but for “the manufacture of a President of the United States.” Although Jackson’s supporters did not intend for the measure to pass, it was approved by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Adams on May 19, 1828.

 

The Tariff Issue and Southern Opposition

 

Tariffs had existed since Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton convinced the Congress of their utility during the Washington administration. Tariffs were the primary source of government revenue and, after 1816, offered protection to the infant industries of America from lower priced foreign imports. The greatest benefactor of high tariff schedules was New England, although as the young nation grew, other areas benefitted as well.

 

In the 1820s, Southern states on the Atlantic seaboard were experiencing difficult economic times. Cotton, the most lucrative cash crop for the South, was steadily declining in value. This affected Virginia as well as North and South Carolina as more cotton plantations began to emerge in the lower South in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and parts of Georgia. Increased production drove down prices.

 

Concomitant to the falling price of cotton, farmers in the most depressed areas were migrating westward, exacerbating a decline in population. Cessation of foreign slave imports after 1808 dramatically increased the price of slaves, further aggravating agricultural considerations. High tariff schedules increased the cost of imported goods. Southerners from states adversely affected believed that tariffs only benefitted the North.

 

Tariffs and Sectional Approval or Disapproval

 

Between 1816 and 1842 Congress enacted six different tariff measures. Only twice were tariff schedules lowered in those six measures. With the exception of the 1832 tariff, which addressed the high rates of the 1828 tariff, congressional delegations from New England approved high tariff rates with overwhelming majorities. New England industries were thriving because of protectionism.

 

Similarly, high tariff rates were welcomed in other parts of the country, notably where they affected local industries. Sugar plantations in Louisiana competed with foreign sugar from Cuba and the Caribbean. Higher rates on imported sugar ensured approval of some tariffs, notably the 1816 tariff, in the Southwest. This was also true in the production of bourbon whiskey in Kentucky, which competed with Cuban molasses.

 

The Tariff of Abominations Leads to Nullification

 

Although the 1828 tariff had roots in the election of 1824 and was designed to influence the election of 1828, it was signed into law by President Adams. This led to outrage in the Southeast, particularly in South Carolina. The “South Carolina Exposition,” written, in part, by Vice-President John C. Calhoun (albeit secretly), advocated nullification.

 

Nullification first became an issue with Jefferson’s Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions during the John Adams presidency, in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Calhoun’s philosophic treatment took nullification further, advancing an intelligent argument for states’ rights. Nullification as an issue would plague the next administration under Andrew Jackson, who settled the matter with the threat of sending federal troops to South Carolina.

 

Congress Revises the 1828 Tariff of Abominations

 

In 1832 Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams (in the Congress as chairman of the Committee on Manufactures) rewrote the tariff, lowering most rates. This diffused Southern protest but the tariff issue would continue to separate the economic priorities of the North and the South throughout the 19^th Century.

 

References:

 

Alfred H. Kelly and Winfred A. Harbison, The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development, fifth edition (W. W. Norton & Company, 1976)

Frederick Merk, History of the Westward Movement (Alfred A. Knopf, 1978)

Published in Suite101 March 20, 2010 by M.Streich, copyright

The Election of 1824: Resolved by the House of Representatives

 

 

 

 

For the second time in American political history, a president of the United States would be chosen by the House of Representatives. The Election of 1824 involved four candidates: William Crawford, Henry Clay, Andrew Jackson, and John Quincy Adams. Although Jackson won the popular vote, Adams would become the sixth president following what Jackson supporters called a “corrupt bargain.” The Election of 1824 would set the stage for 1828, a bitter and scurrilous campaign that would see Jackson vindicated.

 

The Candidates in 1824

 

By far, John Quincy Adams, at least on paper, had the most presidential resume of all the candidates. Son of the second president, John Quincy had a distinguished diplomatic career and had recently served as Secretary of State under James Monroe where he had authored the Monroe Doctrine. Erudite and well traveled, the one time Harvard professor epitomized the very best of aristocratic civil service.

 

The least qualified candidate, Andrew Jackson, was also the most popular. A war hero of the 1812 conflict with Great Britain, Jackson’s leadership saved New Orleans after the Treaty of Ghent ending the war had already been signed, virtually obliterating the invading army with a comparatively smaller group of defenders including Bayou pirates.

 

Jackson was an Indian hater and a slave owner, a man quick to rise in anger. Frequently indignant, Jackson used duels to solve conflicts. Other than an appointment to the National Senate – where he didn’t distinguish himself, Jackson had never been elected to office. Yet the American electorate, propertied white males in 1824, liked the image of a self-made hero with a frontiersman mentality.

 

Henry Clay, by contrast, was the consummate politician. As Speaker of the House, he would be the “king-maker” in 1824. Clay was the master manipulator with great personal ambition. Despised by Jackson and the complete opposite of the Puritan minded John Quincy, he had a reputation for playing cards and drinking.

 

William Crawford, who pulled the third largest number of elector votes in 1824, had fallen ill and could not devote the energies needed to secure the nomination while South Carolina’s John C. Calhoun dropped out early, content to run as vice-president.

 

Outcome in the House of Representatives

 

Henry Clay knew that he had to secure a winner on the first ballot. Having been rebuffed by Jackson, who firmly believed that he should be the next president by virtue of popular votes, Clay visited John Quincy Adams. Adams, an avid diarist, never recounted the substance of the conversation.

 

The vote in the House was close and came down to the delegate from New York, the old General Van Rensselaer who, in matters of great importance, stopped to pray before casting his vote. When he opened his eyes, a ballot naming John Quincy rested on his desk. Taking this as a sign from God, he voted for Adams.

 

Shortly after the inauguration of Adams, Clay was named Secretary of State, a possible future stepping stone to the presidency. Jackson supporters cried foul and spoke of a “corrupt bargain,” denied by Clay and Adams. The acrimony would continue through the four uneventful years of the Adams’ presidency and culminate in the rancorous 1828 election. As president after 1828, Jackson would champion a Constitutional Amendment abolishing the Electoral College.

 

Sources and Further Reading:

 

Paul F. Boller, Jr., Presidential Campaigns From Goerge Washington to George W. Bush (Oxford University Press, 2004)

Page Smith, The Shaping of America: A People’s History of the Young Republic, Vol. 3 (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1980)

Published 12/15/2008 by M.Streich in Suite101. Copyright