Cobbs-Hoffman Elizabeth, Blum Edward J., Gjerde Jon. Major Problems in American History, Volume I, 3 edition (ENG)

CHAPTER 9

Nationalism, Sectionalism, and

Expansionism in the Age of Jackson

When Frenchman Michel Chevelier witnessed a parade in New York City in 1834, he

was dazzled: It was a mile-long procession lit by hundreds of torches, and it included

banners, portraits of political leaders, and even a live eagle mounted on a pole (see docu-

ment 7 in this chapter). “These scenes belong to history,” he later wrote. “They are the

episodes of a wondrous epic which will bequeath a lasting memory to posterity, that of the

coming of democracy.” For this visitor, the political world in the United States differed

radically from that in his European home. Americans were enjoying the burgeoning of a

democracy that was likely to reverberate throughout the world. Historians have found reason

to substantiate these claims. In the early nineteenth century, ballot restrictions were eased

so that all white men, even those who owned no property, could vote. By 1840, those

Americans who could vote did so in record numbers. Politics became a pageant, filling the

streets with demonstrations and parades. Andrew Jackson, elected in 1828, was heralded

by his supporters as a man of the people.

However, other historians have considered these developments in a different light. Not

only was universal suffrage restricted to white men, but free black men were losing their

voting rights in a number of states during this period. In this purported era of democracy,

Indian removal, as we saw in Chapter 7, was accelerating. The United States, many his-

torians argue, was not a paragon of democracy, but rather “a white man ’s republic.” Still

other historians contend that the level of democracy even among white voters is overstated.

Politics might have appeared as pageantry, but this was really a façade. Elections decided

less than voters believed.

Whether politics represented the flowering of democracy or was a sham, political orga-

nization and behavior changed beginning in 1824. The second party system, as it is called,

developed in large part in reaction to the political career of Andrew Jackson. Defeated by

John Quincy Adams in 1824, Jackson vowed revenge in the next presidential election.

Following his resounding victory in 1828 as leader of the Democratic Party, he set about

263

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

creating a federal bureaucracy that would be loyal to him and his party. The adage

“to the victor belong the spoils” was cited to defend the appointment of loyal Democrats

to government jobs. A series of divisive political battles over such issues as a national bank

followed. By 1834, a group of politicians who opposed Jackson’s initiatives formed an

alternative party, which they called the Whigs, in opposition to “King Andrew.” For

the next twenty years, national elections were closely contested, eligible voters participated

in large numbers, and professional politicians vied for votes and rewarded their followers

with patronage if they were victorious. Whereas politicians at one time had disdained cam-

paigning for office, the second party system fostered raucous campaigns and ambitious

politicians.

In this new political environment, politicians addressed issues that would continue to

plague the United States in the years to come. Perhaps the most ominous was the question

of states ’ rights and national power. In 1832, Congress passed a tariff that seemed exces-

sive to southern political leaders. Because the southern economy continued to be based on

agriculture, the South benefited less from tariffs than did the North. Senator John C.

Calhoun from South Carolina responded to this “tariff of abominations” by arguing that

a state had the right to “nullify” laws with which it disagreed. Jackson responded as a

nationalist and declared nullification illegal. The difference even punctuated dinner conver-

sation. On one occasion, President Jackson toasted to the “Federal Union: it must be

preserved.” Calhoun, the vice president at the time, responded, “The Union: next to

our liberty the most dear.” Ultimately a compromise was reached, but certainly there were

aspects of the debate that were not settled. Historians have considered this crisis a prelude to

the Civil War.

One area in which most politicians and voters could agree, however, was the urgency

of expanding westward. Westward migration, so the argument went, would not only

increase national power but also bring benefits to those who were conquered. By 1845,

this impulse was encoded in an ideology known as “manifest destiny.” According to jour-

nalist John L. O’Sullivan, it was “the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the

continent.” Armed with a rhetoric that knit westward expansion with national fulfillment,

Americans in the 1840s pushed for annexation of western lands. The United States

annexed Texas in 1845, gained Oregon in a treaty with Great Britain, and conquered

regions of Mexico following the Mexican-American War, which began in 1846. As of

1848, the United States, which now comprised nearly three million square miles, had

tripled in size in seventy-some years. This “white man’s republic” seemingly had fulfilled

its destiny. Yet storm clouds were on the horizon, as we shall see, precisely because of the

territories in the West.

QUESTIONS TO THINK ABOUT

To what degree was th is a period of increasing democracy? How were notions

about “the people” or “the common man” used to celebrate the potential of

the United States? How were th ese celebrations linked to expansion and

“manifest destiny”? How wa s the issue of null ification ominous for Ameri can

nationalists?

264 MAJOR PROBLEMS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

DOCUMENTS

The first five documents illustrate the issues of nationalism and sectionalism

during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. Document 1 reco rds a popu lar song

that promoted the presidential aspirations of Andrew Jackson. In document 2,

Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina argues against the “tariff of abom-

inations” and for an open market. In contrast, in document 3, Senator Daniel

Webster of Massachusetts argues that the people have ratified a Constitution

that has made the national government the supreme law of the la nd. Presiden t

Andrew Jackson, in document 4, responds to the action o f South Carolina

in calli ng for the null ification of a federal law. Jackson agrees with Webster,

arguing that no state can declare a law void because the Constitution has

formed a government in w hich all the people are represented. Document 5 is

Jackson’s veto of the Bank Bill that author ized the r enewal of the National

Bank charter. This veto set off the Bank War that would consume American

politics for some years to come. Document 6 gives us a view of the battle at

the Alamo in 1836 from the point of view of a M exican co lonel. Document 7

is an observation b y Michel Chevelier who m arvels at a procession of Demo-

crats in New York City in 1839. The final two documents grapple with the

issue of expansion in the 1840s. Document 8 is newspaper editor John L.

O’Sullivan’s expectation of the march westward of Americans into California.

Document 9 provides a colorful portrait by Walter Colton of the rush to the

California gold fields. Note the cultural diversity of the people who are at

work in the mines.

1. A Song to Put Andrew Jackson

in the White House, c. 1820s

Huzza! for General Jackson.

Come all who are our country’s friends,

And unto these few lines attend,

Perhaps before you reach the end

You’ll find something for to mend, …

Our opposition party say,

If Jackson should but gain the day,

There will be war without delay,

And proselytes they gain this way,

To build their fed’ral faction.

America Singing: Nineteenth-Century Song Sheets. American Memory, Library of Congress.

NATIONALISM, SECTIONALISM, AND EXPANSIONISM IN THE AGE OF JACKSON

265

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

But all who are for liberty,

Their deepest plans can sometimes see,

But always let our motto be,

“We’re determin’d to be free,”

Huzza! for Gen’ral Jackson.

We have great numbers on our side,

Old vet’rans who have been well tried,

And never yet have turn’d aside,

All opposition still outride,

Who scorn the fed’ral faction.

And when they’re call ’d for to defend,

Their country’s rights they will attend,

And all that’s in their power they’ll spend,

And will sand by their old tried friend,

General Andrew Jackson. …

If Jackson should be president,

We’ll borrow guns of Government,

And you may load and I’ll tend vent,

Then touch her off and let her went,

With huzza! for Andrew Jackson.

And when the people hear the gun,

The men and boys they all will run,

Expecting for to see the fun,

When they get there will all as one,

Huzza! for Andrew Jackson. …

There’s some who at our party rail,

Call us the rag-tag and bob-tail,

But we have one within our pale,

Who we are sure will never fail,

To vote for General Jackson.

The Jackson Ticket they do say,

Is blood and carnage, by the way

Of slander, yet we hope we may

Join with our southern friends and say,

Huzza! for Andrew Jackson.

266 MAJOR PROBLEMS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

2. Vice President John C. Calhoun Argues

That Tariffs Disadvantage the South, 1828

The Committee do not propose to enter into an elaborate, or refined argument

on the question of the Constitutionality of the Tariff System. The Gen[era]l

Government is one of specifick powers, and it can rightfully exercise only the

powers expressly granted, and those that may be necessary and proper to carry

them into effect, all others being reserved expressly to the States, or the people.

It results necessarily, that those who claim to exercise power under the Consti-

tution, are bound to show, that it is expressly granted, or that it is necessary and

proper as a means to some of the granted powers. The advocates of the Tariff

have offered no such proof….

So partial are the effects of the system, that its burdens are exclusively on one

side, and the benefits on the other. It imposes on the agricultural interest of the

south, including the South west, with that portion of our commerce and navi-

gation engaged in foreign trade, the burden not only of sustaining the system

itself, but that also of the Government ….

That the manufacturing States, even in their own opinion, bear no share of

the burden of the Tariff in reality, we may infer with the greatest certainty from

their conduct. The fact that they urgently demand an increase, and consider any

addition as a blessing, and a failure to obtain one, a curse, is the strongest confes-

sion, that whatever burden it imposes in reality, falls, not on them but on others.

Men ask not for burdens, but benefits. The tax paid by the duties on impost [sic]

by which, with the exception of the receipts in the sale of publick land and a few

incidental items, the Government is wholly supported, and which in its gross

amount annually equals about $23,000,000 is then in truth no tax on them.

Whatever portion of it they advance, as consumers of the articles on which it is

imposed, returns to them … with usurious interest through an artfully contrived

system. That such are the facts, the Committee will proceed to demonstrate by

other arguments, besides the confession of the party interested through their acts,

as conclusive as that ought to be considered….

We cultivate certain great staples for the supply of the general market of the

world; they manufacture almost exclusively for the home market. Their object in

the Tariff is to keep down foreign competition, in order to obtain a monopoly

of the domestick market. The effect on us is to compel us to purchase at a higher

price, both what we purchase from them and from others, without receiving a

correspondent increase in the price, of what we sell….

We are told by those who pretend to understand our interest better than we

do, that the excess of production, and not the Tariff, is the evil which afflicts us,

and that our true remedy is a reduction of the quantity of cotton, rice and

tobacco which we raise, and not a repeal of the Tariff. They assert that low

prices are the necessary consequence of excess of supply, and that the only

proper correction is in diminishing the quantity…. Our market is the world,

The Papers of John C. Calhoun, ed. Clyde N. Wilson and W. Edwin Hemphill, X (Columbia: University of South

Carolina Press, 1959), 444–532.

NATIONALISM, SECTIONALISM, AND EXPANSIONISM IN THE AGE OF JACKSON

267

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

and as we cannot imitate their example by enlarging it for our products through

the exclusion of others, we must decline to their advice, which instead of allevi-

ating would increase our embarrassment. We have no monopoly in the supply of

our products. One half of the globe may produce them. Should we reduce our

production, others stand ready by increasing theirs to take our place, and instead

of raising prices, we would only diminish our share of the supply. We are thus

compelled to produce on the penalty of loosing our hold on the general market.

Once lost it may be lost forever; and lose it we must, if we continue to be com-

pelled as we now are, on the one hand by general competition of the world to

sell low, and on the other by the Tariff to buy high. We cannot withstand this

double action. Our ruin must follow. In fact our only permanent and safe rem-

edy is not the rise in the price of what we sell in which we can receive but little

aid from our Government, but a reduction in that which we buy which is pre-

vented by the interference of the Government. Give us a free and open compe-

tition in our own market, and we fear not to encounter like competition in the

general market of the world. If under all of our discouragement by the acts of

our Government, we are still able to contend there against the world, can it be

doubted, if this impediment were removed, we would force out all competitors;

and thus also enlarge our market, not by the oppression of our fellow citizens of

other States, but by our industry, enterprize [sic] and natural advantages.

3. Senator Daniel Webster Lays Out

His Nationalist Vision, 1830

Sir, let me recur to pleasing recollections; let me indulge in refreshing remem-

brance of the past; let me remind you that, in early times, no States cherished

greater harmony, both of principle and feeling, than Massachusetts and South

Carolina. Would to God that harmony might again return! …

I understand the honorable gentleman from South Carolina to maintain, that

it is a right of the State legislatures to interfere, whenever, in their judgment, this

government transcends its constitutional limits, and to arrest the operation of its

laws.

I understand him to maintain this right, as a right existing under the Consti-

tution, not as a right to overthrow it on the ground of extreme necessity, such as

would justify violent revolution.

I understand him to maintain an authority, on the part of the States, thus to

interfere, for the purpose of correcting the exercise of power by the general gov-

ernment, of checking it, and of compelling it to conform to their opinion of the

extent of its powers.

I understand him to maintain, that the ultimate power of judging of the

constitutional extent of its own authority is not lodged exclusively in the general

government, or any branch of it: but that, on the contrary, the States may

Second reply to Hayne (January 26–27, 1830), in Speeches and Formal Writings, I, Daniel Webster, 285–348, as reprinted

in Daniel Webster: The Completest Man, ed. Kenneth E. Shewmaker (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England,

1990), 113–120.

268 MAJOR PROBLEMS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

lawfully decide for themselves, and each State for itself, whether, in a given case,

the act of the general government transcends its power.

I understand him to insist, that, if the exigency of the case, in the opinion of

any State government, require it, such State government may, by its own sover-

eign authority, annul an act of the general government which it deems plainly

and palpably unconstitutional.

This is the sum of what I understand from him to be the South Carolina

doctrine, and the doctrine which he maintains. I propose to consider it, and

compare it with the Constitution….

This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government and the source of its

power. Whose agent is it? Is it the creature of the State legislatures, or the creature

of the people? If the government of the United States be the agent of the State

governments, then they may control it, provided they can agree in the manner

of controlling it; if it be the agent of the people, then the people alone can con-

trol it, restrain it, modify, or reform it. It is observable enough, that the doctrine

for which the honorable gentleman contends leads him to the necessity of main-

taining, not only that this general government is the creature of the States, but

that it is the creature of each of the States severally, so that each may assert the

power for itself of determining whether it acts within the limits of its authority.

It is the servant of four-and-twenty masters of different wills and different pur-

poses and yet bound to obey all. This absurdity (for it seems no less) arises from a

misconception as to the origin of this government and its true character. It is, Sir,

the people’s Constitution, the people’s government, made for the people, made

by the people, and answerable to the people. The people of the United States

have declared that the Constitution shall be the supreme law. We must either

admit the proposition, or dispute their authority. The States are, unquestionably,

sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not affected by this supreme law. But the

State legislatures, as political bodies, however sovereign, are yet not sovereign

over the people. So far as the people have given power to the general govern-

ment, so far the grant is unquestionably good, and the government holds of

the people, and not of the State governments. We are all agents of the same

supreme power, the people. The general government and the State governments

derive their authority from the same source. Neither can, in relation to the

other, be called primary, though one is definite and restricted, and the other

general and residuary. The national government possesses those powers which it

can be shown the people have conferred on it, and no more. All the rest belongs

to the State governments, or to the people themselves. So far as the people have

restrained State sovereignty, by the expression of their will, in the Constitution

of the United States, so far, it must be admitted, State sovereignty is effectually

controlled. I do not contend that it is, or ought to be, controlled farther. The

sentiment to which I have referred propounds that State sovereignty is only to

be controlled by its own “feeling of justice”: that is to say, it is not to be con-

trolled at all, for one who is to follow his own feelings is under no legal control.

Now, however men may think this ought to be, the fact is, that the people of

the United States have chosen to impose control on State sovereignties. There

NATIONALISM, SECTIONALISM, AND EXPANSIONISM IN THE AGE OF JACKSON 269

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

are those, doubtless, who wish they had been left without restraint; but the

Constitution has ordered the matter differently. To make war, for instance, is

an exercise of sovereignty; but the Constitution declares that no State shall

make war. To coin money is another exercise of sovereign power, but no

State is at liberty to coin money. Again, the Constitution says that no sovereign

State shall be so sovereign as to make a treaty. These prohibitions, it must be

confessed, are a control on the State sovereignty of South Carolina, as well as

of the other States, which does not arise “from her own feelings of honorable

justice.” The opinion referred to, therefore, is in defiance of the plainest provi-

sions of the Constitution….

… I hold [this government] to be a popular government, erected by the

people; those who administer it, responsible to the people; and itself capable of

being amended and modified, just as the people may choose it should be. It is as

popular, just as truly emanating from the people, as the State governments. It is

created for one purpose; the State governments for another. It has its own

powers; they have theirs. There is no more authority with them to arrest the

operation of a law of Congress, than with Congress to arrest the operation of

their laws…. The States cannot now make war; they cannot contract alliances;

they cannot make, each for itself, separate regulations of commerce; they cannot

lay imposts; they cannot coin money. If this Constitution, Sir, be the creature of

State legislatures, it must be admitted that it has obtained a strange control over

the volitions of its creators….

… Sir, the people have wisely provided, in the Constitution itself, a proper,

suitable mode and tribunal for settling questions of constitutional law. There are

in the Constitution grants of powers to Congress, and restrictions on these

powers. There are, also, prohibitions on the States. Some authority must, there-

fore, necessarily exist, having the ultimate jurisdiction to fix and ascertain the

interpretation of these grants, restrictions, and prohibitions. The Constitution

has itself pointed out, ordained, and established that authority. How has it

accomplished this great and essential end? By declaring, Sir, that “the Constitution,

and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the

land, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

This, Sir, was the first great step. By this the supremacy of the Constitution

and laws of the United States is declared. The people so will it. No State law is

to be valid which comes in conflict with the Constitution, or any law of the

United States passed in pursuance of it. But who shall decide this question of

interference? To whom lies the last appeal? This, Sir, the Constitution itself

decides also, by declaring, “that the judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under

the Constitution and laws of the United States.” These two provisions cover the

whole ground. They are, in truth, the keystone of the arch! With these it is a

government; without them it is a confederation…. Congress established, at its

very first session, in the judicial act, a mode for carrying them into full effect,

and for bringing all questions of constitutional power to the final decision of

the Supreme Court. It then, Sir, became a government. It then had the means of

self-protection; and but for this, it would, in all probability, have been now

among things which are past. Having constituted the government, and declared

270 MAJOR PROBLEMS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

its powers, the people have further said, that, since somebody must decide on the

extent of these powers, the government shall itself decide; subject, always, like

other popular governments, to the responsibility to the people.

—Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseparable!

4. President Andrew Jackson Condemns

the Rights of “Nullification” and Secession, 1832

To preserve this bond of our political existence from destruction, to maintain

inviolate this state of national honor and prosperity, and to justify the confidence

my fellow-citizens have reposed in me, I, Andrew Jackson, President of the

United States, have thought proper to issue this my proclamation, stating my

views of the Constitution and laws applicable to the measures adopted by the

convention of South Carolina and to the reasons they have put forth to sustain

them, declaring the course which duty will require me to pursue, and, appealing

to the understanding and patriotism of the people, warn them of the conse-

quences that must inevitably result from an observance of the dictates of the

convention.

The ordinance is founded, not on the indefeasible right of resisting acts

which are plainly unconstitutional and too oppressive to be endured, but on

the strange position that any one State may not only declare an act of Congress

void, but prohibit its execution; that they may do this consistently with the Con-

stitution; that the true construction of that instrument permits a State to retain its

place in the Union and yet be bound by no other of its laws than those it may

choose to consider as constitutional. It is true, they add, that to justify this abro-

gation of a law it must be palpably contrary to the Constitution; but it is evident

that to give the right of resisting laws of that description, coupled with the

uncontrolled right to decide what laws deserve that character, is to give the power

of resisting all laws; for as by the theory there is no appeal, the reasons alleged by

the State, good or bad, must prevail….

This right to secede is deduced from the nature of the Constitution, which,

they say, is a compact between sovereign States who have preserved their whole

sovereignty and therefore are subject to no superior; that because they made the

compact they can break it when in their opinion it has been departed from by

the other States. Fallacious as this course of reasoning is, it enlists State pride and

finds advocates in the honest prejudices of those who have not studied the nature

of our Government sufficiently to see the radical error on which it rests.

The people of the United States formed the Constitution, acting through

the State legislatures in making the compact, to meet and discuss its provisions,

and acting in separate conventions when they ratified those provisions; but the

terms used in its construction show it to be a Government in which the people

of all the States, collectively, are represented. We are one people in the choice of

President and Vice-President. Here the States have no other agency than to

Andrew Jackson, “Proclamation to the People of South Carolina, December 10, 1832.”

NATIONALISM, SECTIONALISM, AND EXPANSIONISM IN THE AGE OF JACKSON

271

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

direct the mode in which the votes shall be given. The candidates having the

majority of all the votes are chosen. The electors of a majority of States may

have given their votes for one candidate, and yet another may be chosen. The

people, then, and not the States, are represented in the executive branch.

In the House of Representatives there is this difference, that the people of

one State do not, as in the case of President and Vice-President, all vote for the

same officers. The people of all the States do not vote for all the members, each

State electing only its own representatives. But this creates no material distinc-

tion. When chosen, they are all representatives of the United States, not repre-

sentatives of the particular State from which they come. They are paid by the

United States, not by the State; nor are they accountable to it for any act done

in the performance of their legislative functions; and however they may in prac-

tice, as it is their duty to do, consult and prefer the interests of their particular

constituents when they come in conflict with any other partial or local interest,

yet it is their first and highest duty, as representatives of the United States, to

promote the general good.

The Constitution of the United States … forms a government, not a league; and

whether it be formed by compact between the States or in any other manner, its

characteristhesame.ItisaGovernmentin which all the people are represented,

which operates directly on the people individually, not upon the States; they re-

tained all the power they did not grant. But each State, having expressly parted

with so many powers as to constitute, jointly with the other States, a single nation,

can not, from that period, possess any right to secede, because such secession does

not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation….

Fellow-citizens of my native State, let me not only admonish you, as the First

Magistrate of our common country, not to incur the penalty of its laws, but use

the influence that a father would over his children whom he saw rushing to certain

ruin. In that paternal language, with that paternal feeling, let me tell you, my

countrymen, that you are deluded by men who are either deceived themselves

or wish to deceive you…. They are not champions of liberty, emulating the

fame of our Revolutionary fathers, nor are you an oppressed people, contending,

as they repeat to you, against worse than colonial vassalage. You are free members

of a flourishing and happy Union. There is no settled design to oppress you.

5. President Andrew Jackson Vetoes the Bank Bill, 1832

A bank of the United States is in many respects convenient for the Government

and useful to the people. Entertaining this opinion, and deeply impressed with

the belief that some of the powers and privileges possessed by the existing bank

are unauthorized by the Constitution, subversive of the rights of the States, and

dangerous to the liberties of the people. I felt it my duty at an early period of my

James D. Richardson, ed., A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789–1897, II (Authority of

Congress, 1899), 576–577, 590.

272 MAJOR PROBLEMS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

Cobbs-Hoffman Elizabeth, Blum Edward J., Gjerde Jon. Major Problems in American History, Volume I, 3 edition (ENG)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.