was altogether different. He considered himself aggrieved by the result of the previous election, and his campaign was con ducted in the Democratic name—so as to vindicate the principle of choice by the popular vote, in other words the Democratic principle. A misfortune of the situation was that the entire candidacy was sectional, for John C. Calhoun, S. C., was running as Vice-President with Andrew Jackson, Tenn., and Richard Rush, Pa., as Vice-President with John Quincy Adams, Mass. The result would reach further than simple party differences warranted. At the election in November the Democrats triumphed. TWENTIETH CONGRESS-Second Session.-Met Dec. I, 1828, with its former Democratic majority in both Houses, the doubtful members in the Senate having swung to the AntiAdministration side, or, which is the same, to the side of the incoming administration. No measures were mooted likely to hamper the new administration, though one, accepting the liberal theory of Internal Improvement, and making large appropriation therefor, went through, after provoking the then stereotyped debates as to its constitutionality. The electoral count in February showed 178 votes for Jackson and 83 for Adams, for President, and 171 for Calhoun, and 83 for Rush, for Vice-President. Congress adjourned sine die, March 3, 1829. The candidates elect were sworn into office March 4, 1829. XI. JACKSON'S FIRST ADMINISTRATION. March 4, 1829-March 3, 1833. ANDREW JACKSON, TENN., President. JOHN C. CALHOUN, S. C., Congresses. TWENTY-FIRst Congress. Vice-President. Sessions. SI, December 7, 1829-May 31, 1830. TWENTY-SECOND CONGRESS. 1, December 5, 1831-July 16, 1832. NEW ADMINISTRATION.-This first Democratic administration opened amid storm and invited storm. It had to confront the fact that the extreme Democrats of the South (the Crawford following) were not heartily with it, but that their drift was toward Vice-President Calhoun, as their leader, who was now among the most rigid masters in the school of strict interpreters and a pronounced champion of the Kentucky resolutions of 1799. Indeed, both Georgia and South Carolina had already assumed, through their Legislatures, to notify the President and the country that they declared null and void any act * Popular vote-Jackson, 647,231; States, 15; Adams, 509,097; States, 9. of Congress (the really objectionable act was the tariff of 1828) which they as States adjudged unconstitutional. In his first message, Jackson took high ground against a recharter of the National Bank, though the charter of 1816 did not expire till 1836, regarded its usefulness as in every way past, argued that it was Anti-Democratic and despotic, and held the law authorizing it unconstitutional. He also swung quite to the side of those who opposed Protection and Internal Improvement. This alienated from him very many Democrats who were of sufficiently liberal turn to favor all these measures. However, this did not last very long, for circumstances soon compelled him to change front on Tariff and Internal Improvement measures, and to at least see that all such as had assumed the shape of law were duly enforced. His hostility to the bank, however, continued. He gave his opposition a decidedly political turn. Its destruction was the result. Nor was the foreign outlook assuring. France was urging a settlement of her spoliation claims, even to the extent of threatening war, and England was clamorous and angry about the Maine boundary. To cap all, a new party, known as the AntiMasonic, had risen in New York, which became a bidder for national distinction, and which, in its fervor, threatened to demoralize existing political forces.* Amid all these complications and antagonisms a President of ordinary nerve would have failed. But it seemed to be the kind of political atmosphere which Jackson liked to breathe. He was fortunate in the respect that there could be no hearty and effective combination of opposing elements, and equally fortunate in the sympathy which naturally goes out toward one who is singly enlisted against overwhelming odds. His personalism infected his entire administration, and this, in his case, was not a misfortune, for *This organization, short-lived as it was, was peculiarly galling to such leaders as Clay and Jackson, who were both Masons. The furore which originated it came from the sudden, and as yet unaccounted for, disappearance of one Daniel Morgan, of Batavia, N. Y., who had written a book exposing the secrets of Free Masonry, in 1826. In 1832 it nominated a Presidential ticket, and then fell into rapid decline. he had been a military hero, was of undeniably honest, but blunt intention, and was quite on a level with the masses in brusque demeanor and every-day speech. VICTOR AND SPOILS.-The clouded and uncertain surroundings of the new administration were its justification for a general clearing out of all officials not in sympathy with it. This became the new doctrine of "Rotation in Office," or as it found popular expression from the lips of Senator Marcy, N. Y., the doctrine that "The spoils of the enemy belonged to the victor." "'* We have seen that Jefferson had given the hint for this doctrine, but that after applying it for the correction of certain errors on the part of his predecessor, had fallen back on the custom, which prevailed from the beginning till Jackson's time, of trusting to time to make vacancies and to the future. supremacy of his party to fill them. Whether Jackson's excuse of self-defense were justified or not, his practice was accepted by all future parties, and prevailed without question, till called to account by Civil Service Reform. TWENTY-FIRST CONGRESS—First Session.-Met Dec. 7, 1829, and organized by re-electing Andrew Stevenson, Va., Speaker, the Democrats being in a majority in both branches. Now the alienations already indicated began. The message, taking its high ground against the National Bank, which was allied with Protection and Internal Improvement, and proposing various things, among them a distribution of the surplus revenue to the States, which were either new or upon which an agreement was impossible, they were * "Another doctrine of Jackson was that he was 'responsible for the entire action of the Executive Department,' and, therefore, had the power to remove and appoint all officers at pleasure—a doctrine which, at a later day, during the administration of Andrew Johnson, Congress was compelled to legislate against. Responsible?' said Mr. Webster, replying to Jackson's protest. 'What does he mean by being responsible?' Does he mean legal responsibility? Certainly not—no such thing. Legal responsibility signifies liability to punishment for misconduct or maladministration. A Briareus sits in the centre of our system, and with his hundred hands touches everything, moves everything, controls everything. I ask, sir, is this Republicanism? is this a government of laws? is this legal responsibility?"—Reminiscences of an old Whig. This afterwards came about. See p. 517; also p. 501 and note. summarily dealt with by the committees to which they were respectively referred. Party lines were strictly drawn over the question of removing the Cherokee Indians of Georgia to the west of the Mississippi, the Legislature of that State having enacted to open their lands to settlers, contrary to existing treaties with the tribe. The National Republicans opposed the bill for removal. Though it passed, it was ineffective, the Indians refusing to part with their lands.* Several enactments looking to Internal Improvements were passed, some of which the President vetoed directly. Others he retained for the legal ten days, and Congress having in the meantime adjourned they thus failed to become law. This convenient way of vetoing a bill by indirection was frequently practised by the President, and got to be known as the "Pocket Veto" method. The most notable event of the session was the introduction into the Senate, by Foot, Conn., of an apparently harmless resolution of inquiry into the matter of public lands, coupled with a proposition to stop surveys and limit sales. As the effect of the proposition would have been to check migration and western settlement, it was opposed by western members, and gave rise to a five-month debate. This took the widest latitude. The imputation by Southern members that it had always been a New England policy to check western settlement, drew from Webster a reference to the ordinance of 1787 for the government of the territory northwest of the Ohio. As this ordinance prohibited slavery, the slave question came up, and was discussed in all its bearings, the debates being sectional, exhaustive and bitter. Hayne's allusion to the attitude of New England in the war of 1812 brought from Webster a reference to the Kentucky nullifying resolutions of 1799,† and to the recent action of * They were afterwards forcibly removed in defiance of a decision of the Supreme Court to the effect that the treaties between them and the United States were valid. Hayne quoted the Virginia resolutions of 1799, written by Madison, as justifying nullification. Webster defended Madison, and showed that such interpretation could not be put upon them. But this did not destroy Hayne's reliance on the Kentucky resolutions, written by Jefferson. We have taken the trouble to show that the doctrine of nullification was not in the Kentucky resolutions which Jeffer |