246 CHAPTER 12 TheSecondWarfor Independence and the UpsurgeofNationalism,1812-1824

people westward. Glib speculators accepted small downpayments, making it easier to buy new holdings.

The western boom was stimulated by additionaldevelopments. Acute economic distress during theembargo years turned many pinched faces toward thesetting sun. The crushing of the Indians in the North-west and South by Generals Harrison and Jacksonpacified the frontier and opened up vast virgin tracts ofland. The building ofhighways improved the land routesto the Ohio Valley. Noteworthy was the CumberlandRoad, begun in 1811,which ran ultimately from westernMaryland to Illinois. The use of the first steamboat onwestern waters, also in 1811, heralded a new era ofupstream navigation.

But the West, despite the inflow of settlers, was stillweak in population and influence. Not potent enoughpolitically to make its voice heard, it was forced toally itself with other sections. Thus strengthened, itdemanded cheap acreage and partially achieved its goalin the Land Act of 1820, which authorized a buyer topurchase 80 virgin acres at a minimum of $1.25 an acrein cash. The West also demanded cheap transportationand slowly got it, despite the constitutional qualms ofthe presidents and the hostility of easterners. Finally,the West demanded cheap money, issued by its OVID

"wildcat" banks, and fought the powerful Bank of theUnited States to attain its goal (see "Makers ofAmerica:Settlers ofthe OldNorthwest," pp. 244-245).

Slavery and the Sectional Balance)

Sectional tensions, involving rivalry between the slaveSouth and the free North over control of the beckoningWest, were stunningly revealed in 1819.In that year theterritory of Missouri knocked on the doors of Congressfor admission as a slave state. This fertile and well-watered area contained sufficient population to warrantstatehood. But the House of Representatives stymiedthe plans of the Missourians by passing the incendiaryTallmadge amendment. It stipulated that no more slavesshould be brought into Missouri and also providedfor the gradual emancipation of children born toslave parents already there. A roar of anger burst fromslaveholding southerners. They were joined by manydepression-cursed pioneers who favored unhamperedexpansion of the West and by many northerners, espe-cially diehard Federalists, who were eager to use theissue to break the back of the "Virginiadynasty."

Antislavery Propaganda in the 1820sThese drawstring bags are made of silk and transfer-printed with "before" and "after" scenes of slavery,On the left bag, an African woman cradles her baby;on the right one, the grieving mother is childlessand in chains, while slaves are being whipped inthe background. These bags were purchased at anabolitionist fair, held to raise money for the antislaverymovement. Purses and the like sold well at these eventsbecause women were prominent in the movement.

Southerners saw in the Tallmadge amendment,which they eventually managed to defeat in the Senate,an ominous threat to sectional balance. When the Con-stitution was adopted in 1788, the North and Southwere running neck and neck in wealth and population.But with every passing decade, the North was becomingwealthier and also more thickly settled-an advantagereflected in an increasing northern majority in theHouse of Representatives. Yet in the Senate, each statehad two votes, regardless of size.With eleven states freeand eleven slave, the southerners had maintainedequality. They were therefore in a good position tothwart any northern effort to interfere with the expan-sion of slavery, and they did not want to lose this veto.

The future of the slave system caused southernersprofound concern. Missouri was the first state entirelywest of the Mississippi River to be carved out of theLouisiana Purchase, and the Missouri emancipationamendment might set a damaging precedent for all therest of the area. Evenmore disquieting was another possi-bility. If Congress could abolish the "peculiar institution"in Missouri, might it not attempt to do likewise in theolder states of the South? The wounds of the Constitu-tional Convention of 1787were once more ripped open.

Burning moral questions also protruded, eventhough the main issue was political and economic bal-ance. A small but growing group of antislavery agitatorsin the North seized the occasion to raise an outcryagainst the evils of slavery. They were determined thatthe plague of human bondage should not spread furtherinto the untainted territories.

The Uneasy Missouri CompromiseDeadlock in Washington was at length broken in 1820by the time-honored American solution of compro-mise-actually a bundle of three compromises. CourtlyHenry Clay of Kentucky, gifted conciliator, played aleading role. Congress, despite abolitionist pleas, agreedto admit Missouri as a slave state. But at the same time,free-soil Maine, which until then had been a part ofMassachusetts, was admitted as a separate state. Thebalance between North and South was thus kept attwelve states each and remained there for fifteen years.Although Missouri was permitted to retain slaves, allfuture bondage was prohibited in the remainder of theLouisiana Purchase north of the line of 36° 30'-thesouthern boundary ofMissouri.

This horse-trading adjustment was politically even-handed, though denounced by extremists on each sideas a "dirty bargain." Both North and South yielded

The Missouri Compromise 247

something; both gained something. The South wonthe prize of Missouri as an unrestricted slave state. TheNorth won the concession that Congress could forbidslavery in the remaining territories. More gratifying tomany northerners was the fact that the immense areanorth of 36° 30', except Missouri, was forever closed tothe blight of slavery.Yetthe restriction on future slaveryin the territories was not unduly offensive to theslaveowners, partly because the· northern prairieland did not seem suited to slave labor. Even so, amajority of southern congressmen still voted againstthe compromise.

Neither North nor South was acutely displeased,although neither was completely happy. The MissouriCompromise lasted thirty-four years-a vital formativeperiod in the life of the young Republic-and duringthat time it preserved the shaky compact of the states.Yet the embittered dispute over slavery heralded thefuture breakup of the Union. Ever after, the morality ofthe South's "peculiar institution" was an issue that couldnot be swept under the rug. The Missouri Compromiseonly ducked the question-it did not resolve it. Sooneror later, Thomas Jefferson predicted, it will "burst on usas a tornado."

The Missouri Compromise and the concurrentpanic of 1819 should have dimmed the political star ofPresident Monroe. Certainly both unhappy events had adampening effect on the Era of Good Feelings. Butsmooth-spoken James Monroe was so popular, and the

Cd FreeD Slave

Missouri Compromise line

Spanish-United States treaty line, 1819

UNORGANIZEDTERRITORY

SPANISHJERRll'OR'f.

The Missouri Compromise and Slavery.1820-1821 Note the 36°30' line. In the 1780sThomas Jefferson had written of slavery inAmerica, "Indeed I tremble for my countrywhen I reflect that God is just; that hisjustice cannot sleep forever; that ... theAlmighty has no attribute which can takeside with us in such a contest." Now, at thetime of the Missouri Compromise, Jeffersonfeared that his worst forebodings werecoming to pass. "I considered it at once:'he said of the Missouri question, "as theknell of the Union."

248 CHAPTER 12 The SecondWar for Independence and the Upsurge of ationalism, 1812-1824

While the debate over Missouri was raging,Thomas Iefferson (1743-1826) wrote to acorrespondent,"The Missouri question ... is themost portentous one which ever yetthreatened our Union. In the gloomiestmoment of the revolutionary war Inever had any apprehensions equal towhat I feel from this source .... [The]question, like a firebell in the night.awakened and filled me with terror ....[With slavery] we have a wolf by theears, and we can neither hold himnor safely let him go."

fohn Quincy Adams confided to his diary,"I take it for granted that the presentquestion is a mere preamble-atitle-page to a great. tragic volume."

Federalist opposition so weak, that in the presidentialelection of 1820,he received every electoral vote exceptone. Unanimity was an honor reserved for GeorgeWashington. Monroe, as it turned out, was the onlypresident in American history to be reelected after aterm in which a major financial panic began.

John Marshall andJudicial Nationalism

The upsurging nationalism of the post -Ghent years,despite the ominous setbacks concerning slavery, wasfurther reflected and reinforced by the Supreme Court.The high tribunal continued to be dominated by the tall,thin, and aggressive Chief Justice John Marshall. Onegroup of his decisions-perhaps the most famous-bolstered the power of the federal government at theexpense of the states. Anotable case in this category wasMcCulloch v. Maryland (1819). The suit involved anattempt by the state of Maryland to destroy a branch ofthe Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on its

John Marshall (1755-1835) Born in a log cabin on theVirginia frontier, he attended law lectures for just afew weeks at the College of William and Mary-hisonly formal education. YetMarshall would go on toprove himself a brilliant chief justice. One admiringlawyer wrote of him, "His black eyes ... possess anirradiating spirit. which proclaims the imperial powersof the mind that sits enthroned therein."

notes. John Marshall, speaking for the Court, declaredthe bank constitutional by invoking the Hamiltoniandoctrine of implied powers (see p. 195). At the sametime, he strengthened federal authority and slappedat state infringements when he denied the right ofMaryland to tax the bank. With ringing emphasis,he affirmed "that the power to tax involves the powerto destroy" and "that a power to create implies a power topreserve."

Marshall's ruling in this case gave the doctrine of"loose construction" its most famous formulation. TheConstitution, he said, derived from the consent of thepeople and thus permitted the government to act for

--- ------ ----

their benefit. He further argued that the Constitutionwas "intended to endure for ages to come and, conse-quently, to be adapted to the various crises of humanaffairs." Finally, he declared, "Let the end be legitimate,let it be within the scope of the Constitution, andall means which are appropriate, which are plainlyadapted to that end, which are not prohibited, butconsist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution,are constitutional."

Twoyears later (1821)the case of Cohens v. Virginiagave Marshall one of his greatest opportunities todefend the federal power. The Cohens, found guilty bythe Virginia courts of illegally selling lottery tickets,appealed to the highest tribunal. Virginia "won," inthe sense that the conviction of the Cohens was upheld.But in fact Virginia and all the individual states lost,because Marshall resoundingly asserted the right of theSupreme Court to review the decisions of the statesupreme courts in all questions involving powers ofthe federal government. The states' rights proponentswere aghast.

Hardly less significant was the celebrated "steamboatcase," Gibbons v. Ogden (1824).The suit grew out of anattempt by the state of ew York to grant to a privateconcern a monopoly ofwaterborne commerce betweenNew York and New Jersey. Marshall sternly remindedthe upstart state that the Constitution conferred onCongress alone the control of interstate commerce(see Art. I, Sec. VIII, para. 3). He thus struck with onehand another blow at states' rights, while upholdingwith the other the sovereign powers of the federalgovernment. Interstate streams were cleared of thisjudicial snag; the departed spirit of Hamilton may wellhave applauded.

Judicial Dikes AgainstDemocratic Excesses

Another sheaf of Marshall's decisions bolstered judicialbarriers against democratic or demagogic attacks onproperty rights.

The notorious case of Fletcher v. Peck (1810) arosewhen a Georgia legislature, swayed by bribery, granted35 million acres in the Yazoo River country (Missis-sippi) to private speculators. The next legislature,yielding to an angry public outcry, canceled thecrooked transaction. But the Supreme Court, with

The Marshall Supreme Court 249

Daguerreotype of Daniel Webster (1782-1852), bySouthworth and Hawes Premier orator and states-man, Webster served many years in both housesof Congress and also as secretary of state. Oftenregarded as presidential timber, he was somewhathandicapped by an overfondness for good food anddrink and was frequently in financial difficulties. Hisdevotion to the Union was inflexible. "One country, oneconstitution, and one destiny," he proclaimed in 1837.

Marshall presiding, decreed that the legislative grantwas a contract (even though fraudulently secured) andthat the Constitution forbids state laws "impairing"contracts (Art. I, Sec. X,para. 1).The decision was per-haps most noteworthy as further protecting property

When Supreme Court Chief Justice JohnMarshall died, a New York newspaperrejoiced:"The chief place in the supreme tribunalof the Union will no longer be filled bya man whose political doctrines led himalways ... to strengthen government atthe expense of the people."

250 CHAPTER 12 TheSecondWarfor Independence and the UpsurgeofNationalism,1812-1824

rights against popular pressures. It was also one of theearliest clear assertions of the right of the SupremeCourt to invalidate state laws conflicting with thefederal Constitution.

A similar principle was upheld in the case ofDartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), perhaps thebest remembered of Marshall's decisions. The collegehad been granted a charter by King George III in 1769,but the democratic NewHampshire state legislature hadseen fit to change it. Dartmouth appealed the case,employing as counsel its most distinguished alumnus,Daniel Webster ('01). The "Godlike Daniel" reportedlypulled out all the stops of his tear-inducing eloquencewhen he declaimed, "It is, sir, as I have said, a smallcollege.And yet there are those who love it."

Marshall needed no dramatics in the Dartmouthcase. He put the states firmly in their place when heruled that the original charter must stand. It was acontract-and the Constitution protected contractsagainst state encroachments. The Dartmouth decisionhad the fortunate effect of safeguarding business enter-prise from domination by the state governments. But ithad the unfortunate effect of creating a precedent thatenabled chartered corporations, in later years, to escapethe handcuffs of needed public control.

If John Marshall was a Molding Father of the Consti-tution' Daniel Webster was an Expounding Father.Time and again he left his seat in the Senate, steppeddownstairs to the Supreme Court chamber (then locatedin the Capitol building), and there expounded his

Federalistic and nationalistic philosophy before thesupreme bench. The eminent chief justice, so Websterreported, approvingly drank in the familiar argumentsas a baby sucks in its mother's milk. The two mendovetailed strikingly with each other. Webster's classicspeeches in the Senate, challenging states' rights andnullification, were largely repetitious of the argumentsthat he had earlier presented before a sympatheticSupreme Court.

Marshall's decisions are felt even today. In this sensehis nationalism was the most tenaciously enduring ofthe era. He buttressed the federal Union and helped tocreate a stable, nationally uniform environment forbusiness. At the same time, Marshall checked theexcesses of popularly elected state legislatures. In anage when white manhood suffrage was flowering andAmerica was veering toward stronger popular control,Marshall almost single-handedly shaped the Constitutionalong conservative, centralizing lines that ran somewhatcounter to the dominant spirit of the new country.Through him the conservative Hamiltonians partlytriumphed from the tomb.

Sharing Oregon and Acquiring FloridaThe robust nationalism of the years after the Wcll"of1812 was likewise reflected in the shaping of foreignpolicy. To this end, the nationalistic President Monroe

U.S.-British Boundary Settlement,1818 Note that the United Statesgained considerable territory bysecuring a treaty boundary ratherthan the natural boundary of theMissouri River watershed. The lineof 49°was extended westward tothe Pacific Ocean under the Treatyof 1846with Britain (see p. 380).

------------

D To U.S. 1810

~ To U.S. 1812-1813

~ To U.S. 1819

~ Jackson's route, 1814

~ Jackson's route, 1818

The Southeast. 1810-1819

teamed with his nationalistic secretary of state, JohnQuincy Adams, the cold and scholarly son of the frostyand bookish ex-president. The younger Adams, a states-man of the first rank, happily rose above the ingrownFederalist sectionalism of his native New England andproved to be one of the great secretaries of state.

To its credit, the Monroe administration negotiatedthe much-underrated Treaty of 1818 with Britain. Thispact permitted Americans to share the coveted New-foundland fisheries with their Canadian cousins. Thismultisided agreement also fixed the vague northernlimits of Louisiana along the forty-ninth parallel fromthe Lake of the Woods (Minnesota) to the RockyMoun-tains (see the map on p. 250).The treaty further providedfor a ten-year joint occupation of the untamed OregonCountry, without a surrender of the rights or claims ofeither America or Britain.

To the south lay semitropical Spanish Florida,which many Americans believed geography andprovidence had destined to become part of the UnitedStates. Americans already claimed West Florida, whereuninvited American settlers had torn down the hatedSpanish flag in 1810.Congress ratified this grab in 1812,and during the War of 1812 against Spain's ally,Britain,a small American army seized the Mobile region.But the bulk of Florida remained, tauntingly, underSpanish rule.

An epidemic of revolutions now broke out in SouthAmerica, notably in Argentina (1816),Venezuela (1817),

Oregon and Florida 251

Andrew Jackson (1767-1845),by Jean Frcmcols deVallee, 1815 This ivory miniature of Jackson as amajor general in the U.S. Army was painted by aFrench artist living in New Orleans. It is one of theearliest surviving portraits of Jackson and depicts himat a time when he was known for his stern discipline,iron will COld Hickory"), and good luck.

and Chile (1818). Americans instinctively cheeredthe birth of these sister republics, though the checkeredhistories of the Latin democracies soon providedgrounds for disappointment. But the upheavals in thesouthern continent forced Spain to denude Florida oftroops in a vain effort to squelch the rebels. GeneralAndrew Jackson, idol of the West and scourge of theIndians, saw opportunity in the undefended swamp-lands. On the pretext that hostile Seminole Indians andfugitive slaves were using Florida as a refuge, Jacksonsecured a commission to enter Spanish territory, punishthe Indians, and recapture the runaways. But he was torespect all posts under the Spanish flag.

Early in 1818 Jackson swept across the Floridaborder with all the fury of an avenging angel. He hangedtwo Indian chiefs without ceremony and, after hasty