'illiili 
 
 n 
 

 BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME 
 FROM THE 
 
 SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 1891 
 
 A..3<^"ia<io laW'f. 
 
 3777 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 O^&^^wlft ^ 
 
 \\\\r\l\ 
 
 L 
 
 Itt ft Sli y 
 
 1 |B^^— ^=^i^ 
 
 g^jp-ifftHH- - 
 
 IN'PERt: 
 
 BK I AKT 
 
 tOAN 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S. A. 
 
 Cornell University Library 
 HD197 1914 
 
 Pol tical and sectional influence of the 
 
 oiin 
 
 3 1924 030 043 107 
 
THE POLITICAL 
 
 AND SECTIONAL INFLUENCE 
 
 OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 1828-1842 
 
 BY 
 
 RAYNOR G. WELLINGTON, A.M. 
 
 ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH DAKOTA 
 
 PRINTED AT THE RIVERSIDE PRESS 
 1914 
 
 E.V. 
 
COPTRIGHT, 1914, BY RAYNOR GREENLEAF WELLINGTON 
 
 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 
 
€o mp Wift 
 
PREFACE 
 
 It is the aim of the present study to show how the public lands, 
 owing to the growth of sections having conflicting economic inter- 
 ests, became a subject for political bargainings and sectional 
 alliances, and to follow their course from 1828 to 1842. 
 
 This study was begun in a seminar at the University of 
 Wisconsin during the year 1909 to 1910, and was continued in 
 Cambridge under the guidance of Professor Frederick J. Turner, 
 to whose suggestions and criticism it owes whatever value it may 
 have. The first chapter, in concentrated form, has been published 
 in the American Historical Association Report for 1911. 
 
 I have had access to the collections of the University of Wiscon- 
 sin, the Library of Congress, the Treasury Department, Harvard 
 University, the Essex Institute at Salem, the Boston Athenaeum, 
 the American Antiquarian Society at Worcester, and the Boston 
 and New York Public Libraries, and wish to express my thanks to 
 the officials for their assistance. 
 
 Ravnor G. Wellington. 
 
 University of South Dakota, 
 January 22, 1914. 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis bool< is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030043107 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 I. Introduction i 
 
 II. Public Lands and Tariff 1828-1833 . . . .12 
 
 III. Public Lands, Surplus and Panic 49 
 
 IV. Public Lands and the Election of 1840 . . .75 
 V. Attempt of the Whigs to use the Victory of 1840 96 
 
 VI. Conclusion ,].... 114 
 
 Bibliography 119 
 
 Index 127 
 
THE POLITICAL 
 
 AND SECTIONAL INFLUENCE 
 
 OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 One of the far-reaching problems of our early general Govern- 
 ment was the administration of the public domain which had come 
 under its jurisdiction by the cession of their claims by the several 
 States. Colonial experience suggested the donation of land to set- 
 tlers as the best way to develop the new coimtry. Head rights or 
 concessions had been the common practice in the Middle and 
 Southern colonies for the encouragement of immigration,^ and the 
 Puritan colonies had granted land "freely to actual settlers in 
 such amoimts as suited their immediate and prospective needs." ^ 
 Indeed, "No principle in the land history of our entire coimtry 
 is older or of more general application than that of giving away 
 public land. Thomas Benton exaggerated little when he declared 
 that the thirteen British colonies were settled upon gratuitous 
 donations or nominal sales." ' The influence of the easy acquisi- 
 tion of the public lands on the happiness and equality of the people 
 was seen by many of the Congressmen who were dealing with the 
 question of the administration of the public domain in 1796. 
 WiUiam Findley declared that "it was the interest of every coun- 
 try to encourage freeholders. . . . This is not only good for Gov- 
 ernment but it tends to make the people happy. Land is the most 
 valuable of all property, and ought to be brought within the reach 
 of the people"; * and that "the United States could not have a 
 
 • A. C. Ford, Colonial Precedents of Our National Land System as it existed in 1800 
 (Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin, no. 352), gs. 
 
 ' H. L. Osgood, The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century, 1, 428. 
 ' Ford, Colonial Precedents of Our National Land System, gs- 
 
 ♦ Annals of Congress, 4th Cong., ist Sess., 33Q. 
 
2 THE INFLUENCE OF TEE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 greater advantage than to have a reserve of good land to offer per- 
 sons who wished to emigrate." ^ During the same debate Jeremiah 
 Crabb stated that "the dividing of the land into small lots would 
 put it into the possession of real proprietors, and have a tendency 
 to make good Republicans instead of servile tenants dependent 
 upon tyrannical landlords." " James Holland also beheved that 
 by the division of the land into small lots the poorer class of citi- 
 zens "would be enabled to become possessed of real property — 
 a situation incident to freedom and desired by all. . . . The peace, 
 and happiness, and attachment of the people would be more likely 
 to be secured, when the land was occupied by real proprietors, 
 than if possessed by persons who were subject, by being tenants, 
 to the will of others." ' Albert Gallatin affirmed contemporane- 
 ously that "if the cause of the happiness of this country was ex- 
 amined into, it would be found to arise as much from the great 
 plenty of land in proportion to the inhabitants, which their citi- 
 zens enjoyed, as from the wisdom of their political institutions. 
 It is, in fact, because the poor man has been able always to attain 
 his portion of land. And it was perfectly immaterial to them 
 whether a man was happy in New Jersey or upon the Western 
 Territory, it was their duty to do all in their power to promote 
 the general happiness of the whole country." * 
 
 Inasmuch as the social influence of the public lands upon 
 democracy, and the right of the individual to emigrate, were recog- 
 nized, it is striking that the colonial precedent of free land grants 
 was not used. The explanation must be found chiefly in the finan- 1 
 cial exigencies of the general Government. Owing to the pressure 
 of weak national credit and a large pubhc debt the public domain 
 was regarded primarily as a source of revenue, and therefore was 
 offered only for a price. "Public lands were then the common 
 purse — the treasury of the nation." * Another reason was that 
 the donation of land was a declining influence in the eighteenth 
 centiuy, while the sale practice was an increasing influence. Land 
 
 * Annals of Congress, 4th Cong., ist Sess., 413. ' IMd., 860. 
 
 ' Ibid., 858-59. * Ibid., 411. 
 
 ' S. Sato, History of the Land Question in the United Stales (Johns Hopkins Uni- 
 versity Studies, iv), 128. 
 
INTRODUCTION 3 
 
 sales were begun by the New England Governments in the eight- 
 eenth century,^ and even " Virginia could hardly escape the com- 
 mercialism of the great land companies Hke the Ohio Company, 
 Loyal Company, or Mississippi Company on herwestem border."^ 
 Furthermore, the pioneers who wanted land were easily satisfied 
 by the reasonable price of public lands in the old States, or by sales 
 at a low price of land belonging to the speculative companies in 
 New York, Pennsylvania, and on the Ohio River. 
 
 The revenue attitude toward the public domain continued in 
 the older sections, but its force was weakened by the growth of the 
 West. The decided change in favor of the actual settler was shown'N 
 in 1820 by the passage of a general relief act, by the reduction in / 
 price from two dollars to one dollar and a quarter an acre, and by 
 the reduction of the minimum unit from one hundred and sixty 
 acres to eighty acres. The Western Senators made a resolute effort 
 to gain at this time, what was a great desire of the pioneers, a gen- 
 eral preemption law, which would give every squatter the oppor- 
 tunity to buy one hvmdred and sixty acres surroimding his cabin 
 and improvements up to two weeks before the beginning of land 
 sales in each district.' The administration of the land system, 
 however, still adhered too strongly to the revenue idea " to per- ' 
 mit the sale of the choicest land at the minimum price to the law- 
 breaking pioneets." * Special laws dealing with individual cases 
 and areas continued in increased munbers until 1830, when the 
 public attitude toward the actual settler had so far changed as to 
 allow the enactment of a general law, but even this was limited 
 in term and retrospective in character. 
 
 John Quincy Adams used all his influence to perpetuate the -*^ 
 revenue attitude toward the public domain, believing it would 
 make for the welfare of the coimtry as a whole. His plan was to 
 use the income from the public lands for a system of national 
 internal improvements from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, 
 which in time would enhance the value of the remaining lands and 
 
 * Ford, Colonial Precedents of Our National Land System, 84. 
 ' Sato, History of the Land Question in the United States, 24-25, 138. 
 ' P. J. Treat, The National Land System, 383, 385. 
 « im., 386. 
 
4 THE INFLUENCE OF TEE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 increase their price.^ Adams looked upon the American public 
 i domain from the general point of view of the European adminis- 
 trator, seeing how instrumental it might be in the national admin- 
 istration of social and economic interests. His attitude was not 
 unlike the physiocratic point of view of Edward Gibbon Wake- 
 field, a contemporary EngHsh economist, who devised "a system 
 which methodized the previously irregular and haphazard attempts 
 at colonization and made it a department of statesmanship." ^ 
 The fundamental principles of the Wakefield system were, first, 
 the sale of land in moderate quantities for a sufl&cient price, instead 
 of being donated in enormous grants or leased at a trifling quit- 
 rent, and secondly the formation of an emigration fund from the 
 proceeds, to be used in bringing out laborers free of cost.' Thus 
 the high price of the land would oblige the poorer emigrants to 
 work for the capitalists until they had accumulated sufficient 
 money by labor to buy land. In this way the colony would attract 
 capitalists and laborers, both obtaining high profits. Wakefield's 
 theory first appeared in 1829 in his "Letter from Sydney," ^ and 
 gradually enlisted the support of men of moderate means. The 
 Colonial Secretary, Lord Goderich, adopted part of Wakefield's 
 theory in 1831 by stopping free grants of land in New South Wales,^ 
 and by using the proceeds of the sales of land to bring out emi- 
 grants." The land system of the colony of South Australia^ 
 embodied Wakefield's ideas, and that of New Zealand ^ to a certain 
 extent. Wakefield was able to get his plan so much into operation, 
 because it enlarged the field for emplo)Tng capital, and at that 
 time England had a surplus of labor and of capital, and a govern- 
 ment composed of capitalists. If the United States had been con- 
 trolled by men of property, and more respectful of Eviropean 
 practice, the plan of John Quincy Adams might have been 
 adopted. . 
 
 ' H. G. Wheeler, History cff Congress, n, 154; J. Q. Adams, Memoirs, vn, 59; 
 vm, 444. 
 « R. Gamett, E. G. Wakefield, 373. » Ibid., 62-70. 
 
 ♦ E. G. Wakefield, England and America, 176. 
 
 ' Gamett, E. G. Wakefield, 96. The price imposed, jj., was too low in Wake- 
 field's opinion. 
 
 • Ibid., 97. ' Ilid., 104. » Ibid., 147, 249, 252, 309. 
 
INTRODUCTION 5 
 
 The manufacturing North Atlantic States were thoroughly in I 
 favor of keeping up the price of public lands. For the promotion 
 of manufactures there were needed a good supply of cheap labor - 
 and a protective tariff. The sale of Western lands at low prices 
 attracted a steady stream of emigration from the manufacturing i 
 States, and lessened the class of population from which the manu- ' 
 facturers coTild draw their supply of labor. So they were bitterly 
 opposed to all Western land measures, the success of which would 
 mean decrease in Eastern land values and political strength. Still " 
 they were unwilling that the proceeds which resulted from keeping 
 up the price of pubhc lands should go into the treasury, for that 
 would lessen the need of a high tariff after the payment of the 
 national debt. , To satisfy both these conditions they urged the j 
 distribution of the proceeds of the pubUc lands among the several | 
 States according to population./ This plan was urged as early as 
 January 15, 1824, when Stewart, of Pennsylvania, proposed in the 
 House of Representatives that the Committee on Roads and Canals 
 report a bill for distributing the proceeds from the sales of the 
 public lands for internal improvements on the basis of representa- 
 tion.^ On February 18, 1825, King, of New York, moved that the 
 public land proceeds be used for the emancipation of the slaves.* 
 February 24, 1826, Strong, of New York, from the Committee on. 
 Public Lands in the House of Representatives reported a bill for 
 appropriating a part of the proceeds of the public lands for the 
 common schools according to the ratio of representation.' Three 
 years later a special committee of the House of Representatives 
 made a report in favor of the annual distribution of the proceeds 
 from the public lands among the several States according to popu- 
 lation after paying for Indian titles and the cost of survey.* 
 Stirred by the insistent and growing demands of Western men, the 
 committee voiced the attitude of the old States by their recommen- 
 dation accompanied by these words: " If any States have, in reality, 
 an unhallowed desire to get, it may be useful to reflect that the 
 other States have the power to keep, and that it is the duty of 
 the representatives of these to know that if the national property 
 
 1 Annals of Cong., i8th Cong., ist Sess., 1042-43. ' Ibid., 2d Sess., 623. 
 
 ' American State Papers, Public Lands, iv, 750-53. * Ibid., v, 793-97. 
 
6 TEE INFLUENCE OF TEE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 is parted with, it is parted with only for the general advantage." ' 
 The old States saw in the plan for the distribution of the proceeds 
 from the sales of the public lands a direct benefit to themselves 
 from the pubhc domain, and they knew they would get a larger 
 share than the newer States on account of their larger proportion- 
 ate population. . They expected also that the proposed measure 
 would create a counteracting pressure against any concessions 
 which would lessen the income froin the public lands, because 
 each State ^|)immediately benefited would want to keep its share 
 as large as possible. 
 
 On the other hand, the West felt that its present existence and 
 its future development depended absolutely upon such changes 
 in the administration of the pubUc lands as would make all its 
 inhabitants freeholders and attract new settlers to occupy its mil- 
 lions of acres of fresh lands. Benton was expressing the antagon- 
 ism of the free land West toward the revenue attitude of the East 
 when he said in 18261'"! speak to statesmen and not to compting 
 clerks; to Senators, and not to qucestors of provinces; to an assembly 
 of legislators, and not to a keeper of the King's forests. I speak 
 to Senators who know this to be a Republic, not a Monarchy; who 
 know that the pubhc lands belong to the People, and not to the 
 Federal Government." ^ This appeal by Benton to the Senate . 
 was made in behaK of his graduation bill' which embodied in 
 general the growing demands of the West.* It included a reduction 
 in the price of lands each year until within four years the price per 
 acre became twenty-five cents; a donation to actual settlers of ^ 
 lands which were not sold after being offered at fifty cents an acre; 
 
 • American State Papers, Public Lands, v, 796. 
 ^ Annals of Cong., 19th Cong., ist Sess., 727. 
 
 ' Benton obtained his ideas from the experience of Tennessee with her own lands. 
 See St. G. L. Sioussat, "Tennessee Politics in Jackson Period" {Am. Bist. Rev., 
 XIV, S4). 
 
 * Benton introduced his graduation bill first on April 28, 1824 {Annals of Coni.,l\y 
 i8th Cong., ist Sess., 582), but, wishing to give the public time to be educated on the 
 subject, he did not press it at this session. He introduced it again on December 
 22, 1825 (Senate Journal, 19th Cong., ist Sess., 65); on December 14, 1826 (Annals 
 
 of Cong., 19th Cong., 2d Sess., 39); and on December 24, 1827 (Senate Journal, 20th 
 Cong., ist Sess., 56). It had been tabled each session at an early stage, but with 
 increasing debate on the subject. He finally forced it to an issue in 1828. 
 
INTRODUCTION 7 
 
 and a cession of all lands, which were not bought after being offered 
 ^for one year at twenty-five cents an acre, to the States in which 
 they lay.' The first two provisions represented the demands of the 
 individual citizens of the West; the last voiced the resentment of 
 the Western States that they were not on a par with the Eastern 
 States who had complete jurisdiction over their pubUc lands and 
 derived a revenue from their sale. Not satisfied with the ultimate 
 cession contemplated by Benton's bill, the Western feeling of in- 
 equality found more radical expression in the amendments which 
 Hendricks, of Indiana, offered January 9, 1827,^ and January 28, 
 1828,' that Benton's plan for graduation and donation should be 
 applicable only to the Territories, and that the public lands in 
 the new States should be ceded at once in full property to the 
 States in which they lay, on condition that they should not be sold 
 at lower rates than estabhshed in the Territories, and that the 
 States should pay for the extinguishment of Indian titles. Hen- 
 dricks based his demand for cession upon constitutional right.* 
 He declared that the Ordinance of 1787 contemplated that the 
 public lands should belong to the States after their admission, for 
 in no other way could the new States be put on an equal footing 
 with the old States.* 
 
 As the distribution of the proceeds from the sales of the public 
 lands among the several States voiced the revenue attitude of the 
 East, so Benton's graduation bill embodied the ideas of the free 
 land West. Already in the later twenties labor was beginning to 
 contend for free access to the public domain in order to ameHorate 
 
 - ' Senate Bills and Resolutions, 19th Cong., 2d Sess., no. 5. ' Ibid. 
 
 ' Senate Journal, 20th Cong., ist.Sess., 124. 
 
 * Hendricks did not originate the right of the States to the lands within their 
 limits. Ninian Edwards, Governor of Illinois, had long held these views, although 
 he did not publicly announce them till his message to the Legislature, December 2, 
 1828 {Illinois Bouse Journal, 1828-29, 10-39). Duff Green wrote Ninian Edwards 
 December 22, 1828: "I have not read your message. I have for years been of your 
 opinion relative to the rights of the States." {Edwards Papers, edited by E. B. Wash- 
 bume, Chicago Historical Society Collections, ra, 378.) Edwards himself stated that 
 Smyth of Virginia was "probably the first man in the Union who countenanced the 
 claim of the new States to the PubUc Domain within their respective Hmits." This 
 was in 1823. {Senate Journal, Illinois, 1830-31, 40.) 
 
 ' Annals of Cong., 20th Cong., ist Sess., 151-66. McKinley, of Alabama, sup- 
 ported Hendricks with a long constitutional argument. {Ibid., 507-21.) 
 
8 THE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 the condition of the workingman. The sale of lands was regarded 
 as injurious to the laboring classes, because few of them possessed 
 sufficient capital to buy land, whereas the donation of lands to 
 actual settlers would bring a freehold and independence within 
 the reach of all. The Mechanics' Free Press of October 25, 1828, 
 contained a memorial to Congress proposing that the public lands 
 should no longer be sold, but that "any man xmpossessed of land 
 should be allowed to take possession of a certain portion of the im- 
 appropriated domain for the purpose of cultivation." ^ The agitation 
 of labor for the freedom of the public domain, together with the 
 demands of the free land West, produced a movement which was 
 not satisfied either with temporary preemption as recommended 
 by Martin Van Buren in 1837, or by permanent preemption ob- 
 tained in 1 84 1, but continued imtil the passage of the Homestead 
 Act in 1862. 
 
 After an agitation of four years, Benton forced his graduation 
 bill to an issue in April, 1828. Hendricks withdrew his sweepiag 
 amendment,* and Benton finally consented to the withdrawal ' 
 of the cession clause, as it caused much difficulty. Van Buren no 
 doubt expressed a very general Eastern opinion when he put the 
 cession propositions of Hendricks and Benton ia the same class, 
 as both leading to "gratuitous cession to the States." * In the Van 
 Buren manuscripts may be found some notes for a speech in Con- 
 gress in which he said: "If we pass this bill — no retreat — cession 
 must follow — the faith of Congress will be pledged if not an 
 acre is sold." * He was wiUing, however, to cede all the lands to 
 the States after the payment of the public debt for a sum as small 
 as twelve cents ^ an acre so long as the premise for such action 
 
 ' J. R. Commons, Documentary History of American Industrial Society, v, 43-4S. 
 
 ' Senate Journal, 20th Cong., ist Sess., 269. 
 
 ' Annals of Cong., 20th Cong., ist Sess., 659. 
 
 * Van Buren MSS. The notes are in the form of two rude drafts, agreeing in 
 essentials, differing in details. The drafts are undated, but internal evidence points 
 to April 21, 1828, when Martin Van Buren actually did address the Senate. Bare 
 mention of this speech is given in the congressional debates. (Cong. Debates, 20th 
 Cong., ist Sess., 674.) 
 
 « "Willing as one to release all the lands to the States upon the payment of the 
 public debt — trifling amount per acre." The other draft states: "That would 
 not be 12 c. an acre." {Ibid.) 
 
r p~%f 
 
INTRODUCTION 9 
 
 was a recognition by the new States that the title to the public 
 domain belonged to the general Government. The East succeeded 
 in defeating Benton's bill even in its abbreviated form ' on the 
 third reading, April 22, 1828, by a vote of 25 to 21.^ The Sen- -^ 
 ators from the North Atlantic States were all against with the 
 exception of Ridgely, of Delaware; the Western Senators were all 
 in favor with the exception of Barton, of Missouri; while the South 
 Atlantic States were divided, three voting yes and six no. The 
 failure of the bill was due to sectional opposition and was not the 
 result of party, for eleven of those in the negative were friendly 
 to the election of Jackson to the presidency.^ 
 
 The vote on Benton's bill shows that, except for loss in land 
 values and population, the South Atlantic States occupied a neutral 
 position in regard to the Western plans for the disposition of the 
 pubhc domain. Her main interest at this time was the tariff. She 
 wanted no deficit which would result in a higher tariff and no 
 surplus to be used for internal improvements. ^The struggles of 
 sections were centering about these three economic issues — tariff, 
 public lands, and internal improvements. / The interest of the _^ - 
 different sections in these issues, in the order of their importance, ) 
 was as follows: The Northwest — low-priced public lands, internal 
 improvements, a high tariff; the Southwest — low-priced public 
 lands, a low tariff, internal improvements; the seaboard South — 
 a low tariff, no internal improvements at federal expense, high- 
 priced public lands; the North Atlantic States — a high tariff, 
 high-priced public lands, internal improvements./ Under these 
 conditions the North Atlantic States, the South, and the West, 
 needed the assistance of another section to get what each wanted 
 most, — a high tariff, a low tariff, and freedom of the public domain 
 respectively. The most likely combination was for each allying 
 
 * It provided for the sale of lands from November i, 1828, at $1 an acre for two 
 years; thereafter at $.75 an acre for two years; thereafter at $.50 an acre for two years, 
 and thereafter at $.25 an acre. An actual settler could obtain 160 acres by the pay- 
 ment of $.25 reduction thirty days after the land had fallen to either of the graduated 
 prices, and acquire title after five years of settlement and cultivation. (Annals of — 
 Cong., 20th Cong., ist Sess., 673.) 
 
 ' Annals of Cong., 20th Cong., ist Sess., 678. 
 
 ' Vandalia, Illinois, Intelligencer, May 17, 1838. 
 
10 TEE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 section to give up a secondary interest in order to obtain its prim- 
 ary interest. The manufacturing North Atlantic States, after 
 1828, were disposed to grant internal improvements in order to 
 get the aid of the Northwest for the passage of a protective tariff 
 against the embittered South; but the Northwest and the North 
 Atlantic States were at odds on the public lands, the chief interest 
 of the former. In general, with certain restrictions, the logical 
 alliance was that of the South and West, each giving up a lesser"- 
 interest and obtaining its chief interest: the South Atlg,ntic States 
 would help the West to obtain what it wanted on the public lands, 
 while the Northwest would assist the South in its effort to pass a 
 lower tariff. The corollary of such a combination was that the 
 North Atlantic States, who had won on both tariff and pubHc 
 lands in 1828, would now lose on both. By the end of the thirties 
 the New England and New York immigration ^ had introduced 
 into the Northwest an element which tended to bring that section 
 and the North Atlantic States into sympathy in spite of their 
 antagonism on the pubHc lands. 
 
 By the beginning of our period the disposition of the public lands 
 had become one of the most difficult national problems. Its im- 
 portance was clearly recognized by contemporaries. The Provi- 
 dence American called it the most important subject to be acted 
 on by Congress.^ The Richmond Enquirer declared that "these 
 public lands are beginning to present some of the most serious 
 questions which have ever agitated our public coimcils." ^ The 
 Philadelphia Gazette affirmed that the disposition of the public 
 lands was the most dangerous subject of legislation before Con- 
 gress, "imless approached in a spirit of mutual concession and 
 compromise." ^ In the New York Evening Post the situation was 
 described as follows: "But the PubUc Lands — the PubHc Lands 
 — this is the exciting theme, which brings every man to his seat, 
 and every other question — tariff, roads, revenue, education — 
 all slide insensibly into this." ^ Robert Y. Hayne, Senator from 
 South Carolina, opened his speech on the pubhc lands, January 19, 
 
 ' L. K. Mathews, The Expansion of New England, 183, 193, 200, 210-11, 214, 226. 
 ' Massachusetts Spy, January 13, 1830. ' January ig, 1830. 
 
 * Quoted in New York Evening Post, February 10, 1830. ° January 26, 1830. 
 
INTRODUCTION II 
 
 1830, with these powerful words: "Every gentleman who has had 
 a seat in Congress for the last two or three years, or even for the 
 last two or three weeks, must be convinced of the great and growing 
 importance of this question. More than half of our time has been 
 taken up with 'the discussion of propositions connected with the 
 public lands; more than half of our acts embrace provisions growing 
 out of this fruitful source. Day after day the changes are rung on 
 this topic, from the grave inquiry into the right of the new States 
 to the absolute sovereignty and property in the soil, down to the 
 grant of a preemption of a few quarter-sections to actual settlers. 
 In the language of a great orator in relation to another 'vexed 
 question,' we may truly say, 'that year after year we have been 
 lashed aroimd the miserable circle of occasional arguments and 
 temporary expedients.' /No gentleman can fail to perceive that 
 this is a question no longer to be evaded; it must be met — fairly 
 and fearlessly met. A question that is pressed upon us in so many 
 ways; that intrudes in such a variety of shapes; involving so deeply 
 the feelings and interests of a large portion of the Union; insinuat- 
 ing itself into almost every question of public poUcy, and endanger- 
 ing the whole course of our legislation, cannot be put aside, or laid 
 asleep. We cannot -long avoid it, we must meet and overcome it, 
 or it will overcome us. Let us, then, be prepared to encounter it 
 in a spirit of wisdom and Justice, and endeavor to prepare our own 
 minds and the minds of the people, for a just and enlightened de- 
 
 cision." ^ . 
 
 ' Cong. Debates, 21st Cong., ist Sess,, 3i-3«. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 PUBLIC LANDS AND TARIFF 
 1828-1833 
 
 The passage in May, 1828, of the "tariff of abominations," 
 framed for defeat by sectional bargaining between the South and 
 the Jackson men of the West,^ had inflamed the South to such a 
 degree that Calhoun, during the following summer, worked out his 
 so-called "Exposition," ^ declaring the right of a State to nullify a 
 federal law. The failure of Benton's graduation bill the same year 
 
 ' "I was," said Calhoun in 1837, " consulted at the time, to know how the South 
 would go, and whether the South would sustain the bill as it came from the Middle 
 States. We did so sustain it, but refused to agree to such amendments as would suit 
 the members from the Eastern States. . . . We saw that the system might be pushed 
 too far to suit New England; that it might be made to affect injuriously the interests 
 of navigation and commerce; and that in that case they would go against the bill. 
 Surely we must have had some assurance that in the final vote New England would 
 join us. We took our hazard on this issue. We resisted all amendments, and kept the 
 bill in such shape that we were assured they never could vote for it . . . but the very 
 men who had most warmly denounced the bill suddenly wheeled round, and, on the 
 final question, took groimd against us." (Cong. Debates, 24th Cong., 2d Sess., 926-27.) 
 Calhoun, on another occasion, declared that two courses were open: "To join the New 
 England interest, and vote such amendments to the bill as would make it acceptable 
 to them, or to resist all such amendments, and take the chance of the members from 
 New England joining those of the South, to defeat the bill on its passage in one or the 
 other House. . . . The difficulty in this [latter] course was the possible reunion of the 
 two tariff interests by mutual concession in the last stage, in order to insure the passage 
 of the bill. To guard against that result, assurances were given which placed the repre- 
 sentatives of the South at ease on that point. . . . Our friends accepted the assurance, 
 and accordingly resisted all amendments that would make the bill acceptable to the 
 Eastern interests, as the only possible means of defeating an odious and oppressive 
 system." (Ibid., 905-06.) McDuffie, in 1844, described the intentions of the South as 
 follows: "We saw that this system of protection was about to assume gigantic propor- 
 tions and to devour the Substance of the Country, and we determined to put such 
 ingredients in the chalice as would poison the monster and commend it to his own lips. 
 This is what is sometimes called 'fighting the devil with fire,' a policy which, though I 
 did not altogether approve, I adopted in deference to the opinions of those with whom 
 I acted." (D. F. Houston, A Study of Nullification in South Carolina, 34, note 3.) 
 
 ' Houston, Nullification in South Carolina, 76. 
 
PUBLIC LANDS AND TARIFF 1 3 
 
 had aroused the West and caused Edwards, the Governor of Illi- 
 nois, in his message '■ to the Legislature, December 2, 1828, to put 
 forth his belief that the Western States had a right to the public 
 lands within their limits. Hendricks of Indiana, and McKinley of 
 Alabama, had already formulated the claim on the floors of Con- 
 gress during the debate on the graduation bill, and Duff Green ^ 
 in the Washington Telegraph had approved such a line of action. 
 "The abuses of power on the part of the National Legislature," he 
 declared, "have been heretofore submitted to without investiga- 
 tion. The CONSTITUTIONAL rights of the new States have never 
 until of late been demanded. We are gratified that the discussion of 
 the graduation bill has led the able Representatives of the West- 
 em States to examine into the pretext under which they have been 
 made to pay tribute, to the last shilling in their purses. Union and 
 concert of action on their part is all that is wanting to secure to 
 them an admission into the Union on an equal footing with the 
 original States. Give the people light. While the moneyed aris- 
 tocracy of the East is rallying all its energy to clothe itself with 
 additional power and influence, let the people of the West examine 
 and understand how far that system which has made them tribu- 
 tary to the other States is sanctioned by the Constitution, and the 
 treaties of cession through which the Federal Government claims 
 title to the soil of the new States." * It remained for Edwards to 
 take the lead in this Western movement by his official action. He 
 was well qualified to do so because of his lifelong championship of 
 
 ' Illinois Eouse Journal, 1828-29, 10-39. 
 
 ^ Dufi Green was proprietor of the United States Telegraph, Washington, the official 
 organ of the Jackson party till Jackson's break with Calhoun. He was related to both 
 Edwards and Calhoun by marriage. He himself married the sister of Edwards, and his 
 eldest daughter married Calhoun's eldest son. Politically he was close to both Jackson 
 and Calhoun, but he gradually drew closer to Calhoun, finally espousing Calhoun's 
 cause when the open rupture came between Calhoun and Jackson in the spring of 
 1830. Green often corresponded with Edwards on the general political situation, and 
 also on the subject of the public lands. (The Edwards Papers, edited by E. B. Wash- 
 bume, Chicago Hist., Soc. Collect., m, 266-67.) December 22, 1S28, Green wrote 
 Edwards: "Yours of the 30th received. ... I have for years been of your opinion rela- 
 tive to the rights of the States, and am prepared to defend your position." {Ibid., 
 377-78.) 
 
 ' April 24, 1828. 
 
14 THE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 the Western cause and his political prominence.' Both Edwards 
 and Calhoun were endeavoring to find a remedy for the grievances 
 of their sections by an appeal to the Constitution. 
 
 Governor Edwards announced, in his message to the Legislature 
 of Illinois, December 2, 1828, that he had been forced to take the y 
 aggressive because the policy of the general Government had con- 
 tinued hostile to the welfare of the West in spite of petitions year 
 after year for an amelioration of the land system, and because an 
 aggravation of the evils already felt had been seriously threatened.^ 
 "A high Functionary of the Government," he declared, referring to 
 Richard Rush, Secretary of the'Treasury in 1827, "sensible of the 
 magnitude of the interests at stake, but unappalled by it, in an 
 elaborate and eloquent official report to Congress, at the last ses- 
 sion, in glowing colors, depicts even the present poor encourage- 
 ment to the settlement and cultivation of the Public Lands as an 
 evil to the nation, and, with uncalculating intrepidity, powerfully 
 urges the means of lessening its absorbing force."* His views are 
 "alarming from an abimdance of concurring proof afforded by 
 other acts of the Government, that they are not individual, but 
 common to a majority of the nation, and from a just apprehension 
 thence arising, that they will continue to influence the Govern- 
 ment."*/ The claims of Edwards that Illinois was entitled to all 
 the public land within its limits rested chiefly on the compact with 
 Virginia, the resolutions of admission into the Union, and the Con- 
 stitution itself.y The leading idea throughout was that the new 
 States were on a par with the old States in every respect. Follow- 
 ing the terms of cession. States were to be organized from the ceded 
 territory, which "shall become members of the Union, and have 
 the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence, as the 
 original States." * The resolution of Congress of December 3, 1818, 
 had declared that Illinois was admitted into the Union on an equal 
 footing with the original States in all respects whatsoever. In the 
 Constitution no provision could be found which gave the Federal 
 Government the power to exercise sovereignty over the public 
 
 ' N. W. Edwards, History of Illinois, 101-04, 488-92, 494-514. 
 
 * Illinois House Journal, 1828-29, 10. " Ihid. 
 
 * Ibid., 18. — » Ibid., 13-33. - ' Ibid., 27. 
 
PUBLIC LANDS AND TARIFF 1 5 
 
 lands in the States after their admission to the Union. No bargain,^ 
 made with a prospective State, to be executed after its admission, 
 which would increase the powers over it granted to the Govern- 
 ment by the Constitution or which reduced it to a condition of 
 inferiority as compared with the old States, was valid, because the 
 moment of admission ended the power of the Government to en- 
 force, and the ability of the State to fulfill, the bargain. Therefore, 
 concluded Edwards, the dominion of the Federal Government over 
 the public lands was limited to the time before the admission of the 
 States to the Union. 
 
 Governor Edwards urged the Legislature of Illinois to petition 
 Congress on the subject and to ask for the cooperation of other 
 Western States. As it was possible that the United States might be 
 determined to maintain its sovereignty in the face of the claim of 
 the Western States, he also recommended that the Legislature take 
 such action as would insure an intelligent investigation by Congress, 
 and afford a suitable opportunity for decision by the courts." 
 Edwards declared that in twenty-two years, and possibly not more 
 than twelve, his opinions would have become the "common senti- 
 ment of a majority of the West." ^ "Let it not be said," he con- 
 tinued, " that the agitation of the question is calculated to endanger 
 the Union. Timely consideration, and a wise and prudent decision 
 upon the important principles involved, can alone save it from per- 
 ils, with which it is at present threatened. The influence, which the 
 Public Lands, as now held and disposed of, are calculated to exert 
 upon the people and Legislatures of the new States, and on the 
 councils of the nation, are too natural to surprise, too obvious to 
 be overlooked. If it has already been injuriously felt, not only in 
 elections, but in legislative measures, what is not to be apprehended 
 
 ' Edwards was referring to the arrangement which Congress had made with the new 
 States at the time of their admission, that, in return for the grant by Congress of<££ty 
 per cent of the net proceeds of the lands within the limits of each State for roads, and 
 one section in each township for education, they should recognize that their admission 
 as States would not deprive the general Government of any rights over the public 
 domain which the latter had possessed during the territorial period. (Edward Chan- 
 oing, The Federalist System, siSi- Treat, TheNational Land System, 108-10, 274-75; 
 note 18, 275. Thomas Donaldson, The Public Domain, 225-26.) 
 
 ' Illinois House Journal, 1828-29, 39. ' Ibid., 37. 
 
1 6 TEE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 from it when the population of these States shall have attained that 
 magnitude, which but a few years will certainly give it? Nothing is 
 to be gained, no danger is to be avoided, by forbearing to discuss 
 the subject. Other measures in relation to these lands have pro- 
 duced a pervading excitement, and an absorbing interest, which is 
 not likely to be increased by this investigation. The surrender of 
 the lands to the States in which they he is the only means of effec- 
 tively quieting the public mind, and terminating forever dangers 
 now formidable, and whose constantly augmenting force is more 
 alarming to the peace and welfare of the Union than any others 
 which it is likely to encounter." ^ 
 
 The Legislature of Illinois did not go the lengths that Governor 
 Edwards desired. It did, however, memorialize Congress, Febru- 
 ary 2, 1829, remonstrating * against the present disposition of the 
 public lands and demanding " the important and absolute necessity 
 of a change in their disposition"; ' and if Congress wovdd not grant 
 graduation, preemption, and donation to actual settlers, urging 
 cession of the lands to the Western States upon "equitable terms, ^ 
 such as the Government, upon enlarged views and due considera- 
 tion of the interests of the whole Union, shall be willing to extend, 
 and those States shall be willing to accept." ^ Indeed, the memorial 
 pressed Congress to such a solution by referring, in a threatening 
 way, to the dangerous aspects of the question. "Should the present 
 oppressive system continue," itdeclared, "and no amelioration take 
 place, it will not be denied that this question is susceptible of being 
 presented in so grave an aspect, as to involve considerations of the 
 deepest magnitude, and demand the most serious and enlightened 
 reflection of those charged with the interest of the whole Confeder- 
 acy. It may be one which, if seriously presented, must involve 
 questions of the highest importance to a State, and of the depriva- 
 tion of some of the attributes of its sovereignty; the control of the 
 internal concerns and policies of a free State by a power other than 
 its own; a prohibition to regulate and improve the settlement of 
 
 ' Illinois Bouse Journal, 1828-29, 37-38. 
 
 ' For earlier memorials see American State Papers, Public Lands, iv, 148, 871; v, 
 608. 
 » Ibid.. V, 624. • Ibid. 
 
PUBLIC LANDS AND TARIFF 1 7 
 
 lands within its limits . . . according to its own views of its pros- 
 perity and happiness; a deprivation of the collection of revenue 
 from vast bodies of soil within such limits; . . . whether in reahty 
 the compact under which the general Government claims these 
 extraordinary powers is consonant to the rights reserved to the 
 States respectively by the Constitution of the United States, or 
 have in any way been granted by that instrument; and finally 
 whether the tenure by which they hold the Public Lands is valid 
 and binding on the new States." ^ 
 
 The claim of the Western States to the lands within their limits 
 was being agitated contemporaneously in other parts of the West. 
 Indiana went further than Illinois, officially asserting, January 9, 
 
 ^ 1829, her right to such lands as a sovereign State, and requesting 
 her Senators and Representatives to induce the United States to 
 recognize this right.'' She also commissioned her Governor to send 
 a copy of her memorial to the Governors of Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, 
 
 ^Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama, urging them to recommend it 
 to their Legislatures for consideration and action. Already on De- 
 cember 22, 1828, the Louisiana Legislature had approved a memo- 
 rial to Congress on this subject, and had instructed her Senators 
 and Representatives to obtain cession of the unappropriated lands 
 within her boundaries from the Federal Government.* Gabriel 
 ^ Moore, member of Congress from Alabama, accepted the doctrine 
 of Edwards as a fair interpretation of the Constitution,* but his 
 home Legislature did not get beyond the stage of discussing the 
 subject. 
 
 The North Atlantic States and those in sympathy with them 
 were aroused by this aggression of the West. Henry Clay, who had 
 built up his political strength upon a combination of internal im- 
 provements and the tariff, was much disturbed. "Mr. Clay," wrote 
 John Quincy Adams, December 31, 1828, "spoke to me with great 
 concern of the prospects of the country — the threats of disunion 
 from the South, and the graspings after all the public lands, which 
 are disclosing themselves in the Western States. He spoke of a long 
 
 • American State Papers, Public Lands, v, 624-25. 
 
 » lUd., 630. " Hid; 622-23. 
 
 « Moore to Edwards, December 27, 1828. {Edwards Papers, 507.) 
 
1 8 TEE INFLUENCE OF TEE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 message from Ninian Edwards, Governor of Illinois, to the Legisla- 
 ture of that State, who he said, wished to take the lead from T. H. 
 Benton, Senator from Missouri, who commenced this inroad on the 
 pubHc lands." ^ Niles's Register termed the agitation "a simultane- 
 ous movement in several of the Western States," for "a very un- 
 reasonable project." ^ On February 25, 1829, a special committee 
 of the House of Representatives urged the annual distribution of 
 the proceeds from the sales of public lands among the States accord- 
 ing to their proportionate population, t o prote ct thejnterests of the 
 old St ates f rom th e bo l d demands of the new Sta tes.^ Thecomrnit- 
 tee thought that the time had come to awaken the community to 
 protect^its rights, and they beheved that this distribution plan 
 would "effectively prevent the selfish from availing themselves of 
 the advantage presented by some great crisis in pubHc affairs to 
 obtain propitiatory concessions from rival parties deeply injurious 
 to the general interest." * 
 K Nothing was more natural than that the Southard WasLshould 
 \ draw together to make a political alliance a^thisj:ime, against their 
 common enemy, the Northeast. That a favorable basis for such a 
 poKtical alliance existed may be seen from the friendly relations of 
 th e sectio nal leaders , Cal houn and Edwards, since the early twen->./ 
 ties, their similarity of ideas as to the equality of the States, and 
 their wiUingness to take action to protect the needs of their sections. 
 The political intimacy of Calhovm and Edwards began as early as 
 1821. On July 3 of that year Calhoun wrote Edwards : "You do not 
 write me with any more f amiharity than what is perfectly accept- 
 able." ^ In the skirmishing before the presidential campaign of 
 1824, Edwards evidently acted as the political representative of 
 Calhoun in the Northwest and endeavored to extend his influence 
 in that region as against Crawford's.* For example, Calhoun asked 
 Edwards to get subscribers in the West for a Washington news- 
 paper which was to be pro-Calhoun and anti-Crawford, and de- 
 clared that he was anxious to hear from 'him soon, as much de- 
 pended upon the West.' Contemporaneously, Calhoun deferred to 
 
 > Adams, Memoirs, vm, 87-88. ' Niles's Register, xxxv., 313. 
 
 / ' American Slate Papers, Public Lands, v, 793-97. * Ibid., 797. 
 
 ' Edwards, History of Illinois, iS8-Sg. ' Ziti., 522-24. 
 
 ' Calhoun to Edwards, June 22, 1822. (Ibid., 489-91.) 
 
PUBLIC LANDS AND TARIFF 1 9 
 
 Edwards on the policy of the leasing of lead mines: "I am much 
 gratified with your statement as to the public feelings of the West 
 witiirelation to the subject of lead mines. You have seen the course 
 adopted by this Department and I hope it is such as to meet with 
 your approbation." ^ The high value which Calhoun placed upon 
 the assistance of Edwards at this time is shown by his writing to 
 him, March 21, 1823 : "I must . . . express my belief that few men 
 are more important at this moment as connected with domestic 
 politics"; ^ and again, September 23: "Few men can have greater 
 influence over the destiny of the country than yourself at this 
 time." ' The correspondence of Edwards and Calhoun probably 
 continued during the years with which we are immediately con- 
 cerned, as may be inferred from an extract from the letter in which 
 Calhoun thanked Edwards for siding with him in his breach with 
 Jackson : " I have received the letters which you addressed me, and 
 I am under obligations to you for your friendly feelings toward 
 me. I did not answer them, because things were so situated that 
 I could say nothing satisfactory." * 
 
 Edwards and Calhoun did not agree in their interpretation of 
 the Constitution, or in the methods of procedure which were pro- 
 posed for remedying the needs of their sections. Edwards believed 
 in the division of sovereignty between the general Government and 
 the States, and he stated that each possessed "the sovereign au- 
 thority within its own sphere, and none whatsoever outside of it" ; ^ 
 while Calhoun clearly separated government from sovereignty, 
 restricted the appUcation of the division to the powers of govern- 
 ment, and ascribed the sovereignty solely to the people of the differ- 
 ent States. To obtain the cession of the pubUc lands within the 
 States to their rightful owners, Edwards advocated petitions to 
 Congress by the States concerned, or a proceeding which would 
 lead to a decision by the dburts; while Calhoun, to protect the 
 South against the tariff, affirmed in the "Exposition" that each 
 State had the right to nullify a federal law within its limits. Al- 
 though Edwards did not go as far as Calhoun, still the practical 
 
 ' Calhoun to Edwards, August 20, 1822. (Ibid., 491-92.) * Ibid., 494. 
 
 8 Edwards Papers, 211. * February 15, 1831, Edwards, History of Illinois, 496, 
 ' Illinois House Journal, 1828-29, 21. 
 
20 THE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 effect of his ideas, if carried to their conclusion, would be to help -^ w 
 the cause for which Calhoun was working — state-rights a^ against^ ^ 
 a strong centralized government. At this time the Westerners 
 regarded their States as in a state of dependence toward the central 
 Government, and they were obliged continually to come to Con- 
 gress as petitioners for concessions in individual cases, for grants of 
 land for various purposes, and for a general amelioration of the land 
 system. This woidd aU be done away with, if the Western States ' 
 disposed of their own lands. By putting the Western States on 
 f \ terms of equality with the older States, the tendency towards con- 
 \\solidation would be weakened, and it was a consolidated National 
 ^ Government which the South especially feared. 
 
 Evidence of the approach of Calhoun and Edwards may be seen 
 in the following letter of Duff Green to Edwards, January 6, 1829: 
 
 "Yours of the 21st received. I am gratified to hear of your suc- 
 cess, but permit me to caution you. You now hold a position which 
 may do your friends here great injury. Caution and prudence on 
 your part is therefore necessary. My own opinion is McLean as 
 well as Van Buren and Calhoun looks to the Presidency. The di- 
 vided and distracted state of things in the West will produce much 
 speculation upon individuals and you enjoy enough of public men 
 to know that whatever you may do or say will be attributed to 
 an influence out of your State. 
 
 "It is particularly desirable that the conflicting interests of our 
 party be made to harmonize, and to prevent a premature collision, 
 it is agreed on all hands that General Jackson shall hold a position 
 for reelection if necessary or expedient; perhaps he may desire it, 
 and if so, no one can prevent his reelection. 
 
 "You will therefore plainly see the impropriety of getting up at 
 this time any new organization of parties based upon any specula- 
 tion as to competition between Van Buren and your personal 
 friend.^ My own advice to you is to press your land question, get up 
 and continue the discussion in the newspapers of your own State 
 and other Western States. Make yourself the head of that measure ; 
 and you will be forced into the Senate; if once there your triumph 
 
 ' Calhoun is here referred to. Fish is of the opinion that Edwards desired to declare 
 openly for Calhoun. (C. R. Fish, The Civil Service and the Patronage, 115.) 
 
PUBLIC LANDS AND TARIFF 21 
 
 over your old enemy is complete. Your views on the rights of the 
 States are considered able and conclusive. No paper from your pen 
 is calculated to do you more honor. It is an able and sound argu- 
 ment, and the doctrine which it lays down must prevail. But you 
 must come into public favor as the advocate of a measure, not of 
 men. Your position in relation to the public lands brings you into 
 company with the South and West and in direct conflict with the 
 East. The consequences are easily forseen [sic], but the results 
 will be the work of time, four years may not be enough. You as 
 as well our anti-tariff friends run butt against the Supreme Court, 
 which cannot resist the united force of the two questions." ^ 
 
 It is possible that Green may have been writing entirely on his 
 own responsibility, but it seems reasonable that he was representing 
 Calhoun to some extent. In the first place, Green had acted before 
 as an intermediary between Calhoun and Edwards.'' Besides, 
 Green was already probably closer to Calhoun than to Jackson.' 
 A comparison with Green's letter to Edwards, April 27, 1830, may 
 be of assistance: — 
 
 "I acknowledge the receipt of your last, in which you speak of the 
 effect to be produced by the land question upon the next Presiden- 
 tial election. . . . Van Buren no doubt desires General Jackson to 
 be a candidate for reelection, under the belief that he can obtain an 
 indorsement of the General's popularity . . . my own individual 
 opinion is that General Jackson will not be a candidate, and that 
 Mr. Calhoun will be the candidate of the South and West, and that 
 he will also obtain the Democracy of New England. Pennsylvania, 
 New York, and Ohio are more doubtful. 
 
 "... Mr. Calhoun is daily gaining in strength, and he will rally 
 
 1 Edwards Papers, 379-81. 
 
 ■■■ Green to Edwards, December 29, 1826. {Ihid., 266-67.) 
 
 ' Amos Kendall's appointment to office was confirmed in the Senate by the casting 
 vote of Calhoim, "perhaps for fear he would, if not confirmed, set up a newspaper in 
 competition with Green's ' Telegraph' for the position of administration organ." (Sum- 
 ner, Jackson, Revised Ed., 19, quoting Kendall's Autobiography, 371.) This might be 
 taken to indicate that the Telegraph already had a slight Calhoim tinge. That Duff 
 Green was not as close to Jackson as Van Buren may be seen from the failure of Green 
 to control appointments in Illinois. Applicants approved by Edwards and Green had 
 no chance against those indorsed by Van Buren. {Edwards Papers, 399-400, 427-29, 
 4SS-76, 548-49-) 
 
22 TEE INFLUENCE OF TEE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 the South upon the subject of the Tariff and the Western lands. . . . 
 I must refer you from time to time to my paper. To your practiced 
 eyes there is no key wanting." ^ 
 
 Green is clearly acting here as Calhoun's political lieutenant, and 
 it is not unreasonable to presume that the process of becoming so 
 extended back a considerable period, and possibly included the 
 date of the-earlier letter. At all events, from cumvilative evidence 
 we may safely conclude that Green was acting as the promoter of 
 Calhoun's interests when he wrote Edwards, April 6, 1829. If this 
 is true the indorsement of Edwards's views by the Telegraph has 
 greater meaning: "The growing strength of the Western States and 
 the great importance of the question, so ably argued by Governor 
 Edwards in his message to the Legislature of Illinois, form our 
 apology for occupying so large a space in our paper of to-day with 
 his able argument on the constitutional rights of the new States. 
 The opinion there expressed has been long entertained by us, and 
 will, we have no doubt, become the imiversal opinion of the Wes- 
 tern States. If our fellow-citizens of the West will place themselves 
 upon their high constitutional rights instead of presenting them- 
 selves to Congress in the attitude of mendicants, they will soon 
 hold the balance of political power." ^ 
 
 In making approaches to Edwards, Calhoun was without doubt 
 planning to give in to the West on the public lands, and in return 
 get assistance for the South in its fight for a lower tariff, and also 
 for his candidacy for the presidency. In doing so he was looking on 
 the public lands as a subject for sectional bargaining and a means 
 of political advancement. With Edwards in the Senate and the 
 West behind him, a powerful ally would be at hand. It was prob- 
 ably with this view that Green encouraged Edwards to continue his 
 agitation of the land question, and repeatedly urged him to come 
 to Washington either as Senator or as Congressman.* 
 
 The cause of Edwards, instead of being assisted by association 
 
 with Calhoun, was in fact vitally injured. This was due to the 
 
 bitter rivalry of Van Buren and Calhoun for the presidency. Van 
 
 Buren evidently saw that Edwards was in a position to assist Cal- 
 
 ' Edwards Papers, 488-89. > December 30, 1828. 
 
 ' Edwards Papers, 429, 447, sS3i 57°. S78. 
 
PUBLIC LANDS AND TARIFF 23 
 
 houn, and so endeavored to decrease the influence of the Illinois 
 Governor in his own State. ^y_the control of the patronage Van Vj 
 Buren built up a powerful state organization/ hostile to Edwards's * 
 i deas on the pub lic lands.^ Edwards's address ^ to the Legislature, 
 December 7, 1830, was a reiteration of his arguments of two years 
 before, and requested a careful investigation of the whole question 
 of the right of the State to the public lands within its limits, with 
 a view either of abandoning the claim altogether, or of adopting 
 effectual means for forcing the general Government to recognize it. 
 If Illinois as a State would not agree and memorialize Congress on 
 the subject, the supporters of his doctrine could not expect Con- 
 gress to take action. Fearing that his continuance in ofl&ce would 
 prevent imion, Edwards ended by announcing his intention to with- 
 draw into private life.^ 
 
 The free land West, as represented by Ninian Edwards and his 
 doctrines, had not gained by asso ciation with Calhoun, because the 
 latter had had in view not only sectional interest but political am- ' 
 _bition._ The presidenti al rivalry of Calhoim and Van Buren had 
 been fought out in Illinois, a nd had resulted in the denial of Ed- 
 wards's claim by the political leaders of his_pwn State and in the 
 elimination o f Edwards as a political factor. However, the possi- 
 bihty of an alliance between the South and West still remained, 
 and the tendencies toward it had certainly been increased by the 
 close relations between Edwards and Calhoun. 
 
 The opportunity for strengthening the ties between the South 
 and the West was soon provided by the aggression of the manufac- 
 turing North Atlantic States in Congress. December 17, 1829, ^ 
 Hunt, of Vermont, moved that the Committee on Public Lands be 
 instructed to inquire into the expediency of distributing the net 
 
 ■ Van Buren found ready tools in " Smith, Kinney & Co., '' who were trying to make 
 themselves the heads of the Jackson party in Illinois, and were the bitter rivals of 
 Edwards. (Edwards Papers, 451, 447, 504.) He strengthened them by seeing to it that 
 only their men were appointed to office. (Ibid., 399-400, 427-29.) Those recom- 
 mended by Edwards and indorsed by Green- had no chance of success. (Ibid., 455, 
 47S-76.) 
 
 ^ Cong. Debates, 21st Cong., ist Sess., 487. 
 
 ' Illinois House Journal, 1830-31, 8-50. 
 
 * Edwards, urged by Green, ran for Congress in 1832, but was beaten by a Van 
 Buren man. (Edwards Papers, 570, 578, 583, note.) 
 
24 TEE INFLUENCE OF TEE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 annual proceeds of the public land sales among the States for edu- 
 cation and internal improvements according to their proportionate 
 representation in the House of Representatives.^ Hunt, to be sure, 
 declared that his object was to establish a general system for the 
 equal distribution of the returns from the public lands among all 
 sections, to replace the present course of partial and unequal grants 
 to particular States and institutions.'' In addition, the distribution 
 plan was introduced to block the claim of the Western States to the 
 land within their limits,' because it admitted as a premise that the 
 United States owned the public domain. It was regarded by the 
 South and West as a renewed attempt on the part of the North 
 Atlantic States to settle the land question in accordance with their 
 economic interests, and they immediately opposed it to protect 
 themselves. Representatives of both sections declared that the 
 proposal was premature, for the proceeds of the public lands would 
 not be available for distribution imtil the national debt had been 
 paid.^ The South believed that it was designed to perpetuate the 
 tariff.^ Lewis, of Alabama, as a Southerner, declared that "it 
 required very moderate foresight to perceive that the friends of the 
 tariff would go en masse for this proposition. It will serve as a pre- 
 text for keeping up the high rate of duties, and for continmng their 
 exactions on the South. How, then, can Southern gentlemen who 
 are opposed to the tariff vote for this proposition?" ^ Burges, of 
 Rhode Island, rejoined that if Lewis "could imagine that any 
 
 • Cong. Debates, 21st Cong., ist Sess., 477. January 18, 1830, Hunt substituted a 
 select committee for the Committee on Public Lands. (House Journal, 21st Cong., 
 1st Sess., 180.) 
 
 • Cong. Debates, 21st Cong., 1st Sess., 502. • Ibid., 456, 496, 522. 
 ' Ibid., 484, 48s, 489, 497, soo, 505. 
 
 ^ Ibid., 497, 539- The South had been put on its guard against distribution in any 
 form by the bill, proposed by Dickerson, of New Jersey, February i, 1827, for taking 
 five million dollars from the sinking fund, and distributing it among the States in the 
 ratio of direct taxation (Cong. Debates, ig^ Cong., 2d Sess., 209), and' again, Janu- 
 ary 13, 1829 (Cong. Debates, 20th Cong., 2d Sess., 28), Hayne, of South Carolina, had 
 denounced the plan as a move on the part of " those who had a direct or indirect share 
 in preserving the system of high duties" (ibid., 40), and had declared that these men 
 were trying by all means to perpetuate the national debt, and so afford a pretext for a 
 continued high tariff (ibid., 37). See also p. 41 for a similar statement by Berrien, of 
 Georgia. 
 
 • Cong. Debates, 21st Cong., ist Sess., 506. 
 
PUBLIC LANDS AND TARIFF 25 
 
 friend of the American System would support the resolution on the 
 ground he had stated, it was more than he could imagine." ^ The 
 South, notwithstanding the denial of the Northern manufacturers, 
 persisted in regarding the distribution plan as a move on the part of 
 the tariff interests. The Charleston Mercury termed it "a system 
 of pubhc robbery devised by Yankee headwork to plunder the South. 
 This is the perfection of the American system." '^ , The West natu- 
 rally regarded distribution as hostile to all its plans for an amelio- 
 ration of the existiQg methods of disposing of the pubhc domain. 
 It saw that it could not obtain a reduction in price, preemption, a 
 donation to settlers, or cession of refuse if the North Atlantic States 
 once obtained a share in the proceeds from the land sales. Pettis, of 
 Missouri, in a powerful speech voiced the attitude of the West. 
 "The people of the new States justly contend," he said, "that the 
 Government has lost sight of the chief object, that of setthng the 
 country, and looks mainly to the money that is to be made from its 
 own citizens. . . . If this[theadoptionof Hunt's resolution] be done, 
 it will be considered the interest of the people of] the old States 
 not only to relax their present system, but to adopt one more oner- 
 ous. They will force their Representatives here to act as a set of 
 heartless speculators, wringing from the poor cultivator of the soil 
 the last cent of his earnings. It is in vain that gentlemen say to us, 
 'adopt this, our system of distribution and we wiU give you a hberal 
 system of disposing of these lands.' We know that when the sys- 
 tem shall have been fixed upon us we cannot escape. . . . Yes, sir, I 
 am one of those that fear that the main objects of the prime movers 
 and supporters of this resolution are ... to prevent the growth and 
 settlementof the new States and to keep their population at home." ^ 
 Thus Hunt's resolution endangered the economic interests of the 1 
 South and West, and influenced both to act together in opposition. 
 The union of these two sections as against the North Atlantic States 
 is seen in the vote on the distribution part of the resolution, Janu- 
 ary 18, 1830.^ Of the 113 votes in favor, 83 came from the North 
 
 ' Cong. Debates, 21st Cong., ist Sess., 522; see also 520. 
 
 ' April 3, 1830; see also January 29, 1830. 
 
 ' Cong. Debates, 21st Cong., ist Sess., 524-25, 530. 
 
 ' Bouse Journal, 21st Cong., ist Sess., 181-82. The vote on the remainder of the 
 
26 THE INFLUENCE OP THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 Atlantic States, 15 from the South Atlantic States, 15 from Ohio 
 and Kentucky, i from the Southwest. The 70 against were divided 
 as follows: 10 from the North Atlantic States, 32 from the South 
 Atlantic States, 13 from the Northwest, 15 from the Southwest. 
 The alliance of the South and West would probably have been dis- 
 played even more decisively if the vote had been regarded as a test 
 vote.^ 
 
 Meanwhile, on December 29, 1829, Samuel A. Foot, of Connecti- 
 cut, had moved in the Senate that the Committee on Public Lands 
 be instructed to inquire into the expediency of limiting for a certain 
 period the sale of the public lands to those already in the market, 
 and if wis£_Qf_ abolishing the office of Surveyor-General.^ Foot 
 claimed that his object was merely to obtain information,' but 
 evidence points to his motion being just as much an attempt to 
 protect his section as Hunt's in the House of Representatives. In 
 the first place. Foot was in the habit of acting vigorously against 
 Western land plans. He had voted against Benton's graduation bill 
 in 1828,* and had supported an amendment at that time which re- 
 sembled closely his present motion.^ Again, in May, 1830, he voted 
 against ^ Benton's bill, and tried to delay it by reference to the 
 Committee on Public Lands with instructions to get certain infor- 
 mation on the whole question from the General Land Office.' This 
 
 resolution was taken January ig. It resulted in a vote of 97 to 88 on " for the purpose 
 of education "; of 92 to 93 on " for the purpose of internal improvements " ; and of 1 1 7 
 to 76 on "in proportion to the representation of each in the House of Representa- 
 tives." {Ibid., 184-87.) A bill appropriating the net proceeds from the sales of the 
 public lands to the use of the several States and Territories was reported, March 18, 
 1830, by the select committee, but it progressed no further than being referred to 
 the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. {Ibid., 429.) 
 
 » Some who were opposed voted for it from courtesy to its friends. {National 
 Intelligencer, as quoted in Richmond Enquirer, January 23, 1830.) 
 
 ' Cong. Debates, 21st Cong., ist Sess., 3. January 20, 1830, Foot modified his reso- 
 lution so as to include the original proposition, and also " whether it would be expedi- 
 ent to adopt measures to hasten the sales, and extend more rapidly the surveys of the 
 public lands." {Ibid., 33.) ' Ibid., 4. 
 
 * Cong. Debates, 20th Cong., 1st Sess., 678. 
 
 ' John Chandler, of Maine, had moved, April 17, 1828, the following amendment to 
 Benton's bill; "No land shall hereafter be offered for sale ... in any State where this 
 act shall have its operation, until the further order of Congress." {Senate Journal, 
 20th Cong., 1st Sess., 308.) 
 
 » Cong. Debates, 21st Cong., ist Sess., 427. ' Ibid., 423. 
 
 ^ 
 
PUBLIC LANDS AND TARIFF 27 
 
 was a specious move because the Commissioner was sick/ and the 
 information asked for was already before the Senate.^ A leading 
 newspaper of Foot's own party and section admitted that Benton's 
 schemes had been "met by Foot's resolution which will . . . secure 
 to the Union the lands for some time to come." ' Possibly the 
 manufacturers of the North Atlantic States, who saw the relation 
 of cheap Western land to their labor supply/ were the instigators 
 of Fo ot's reso lution. The close touch of Abbott Lawrence, a promi- y 
 nent Massachusetts manufacturer, and Daniel Webster,* and the 
 accusations of Jackson newspapers that Foot was acting for Web- 
 ster ,^supported this view. The fact that no letters from New Eng- 
 land manufactturers to"Eeir Representatives in Washington are 
 extant cannot be used as an argument against attributing Foot's 
 
 ' Cong. Debates, 21st Cong., ist Sess., 424. New York Evening Post, May 12, 1830. 
 
 ' Ibid., 424-25. 
 
 ' New York Daily Advertiser, January 26, 1830. 
 
 * Abbott Lawrence admitted in 1837 that a reduction of the tariff and of the 
 price of public lands would "drain the State of its population and wealth." (Letter 
 of Lawrence to his constituents, March 25, 1837, in H. A. Hill's Memoirs of Abbott 
 Lawrence, 20.) John Davis, Congressman from Massachusetts, declared, in Decem- 
 ber, 1832, that the manufacturers would be excited into consternation by Jackson's 
 proposal "to give away the public lands." {Journal of J. Davis, Davis MSS. [Wor- 
 cester], in, no. 168, 6.) The influence of the public lands upon wages in the East was 
 so generally recognized that foreign travelers remarked on it. Chevallier attributed 
 the high wages in the Lowell mills to the vast pubhc domain, and stated that, when 
 workingmen combined in America, it meant "Raise our wages, or we go West." 
 (M. Chevallier, United States, 143-44.) 
 
 * May 7, 1828, Abbott Lawrence wrote Daniel Webster: "The amendments offered 
 by the Committee on Manufactures to the Tariff Bill in the Senate I have examined 
 carefully, and so far as Woolens are concerned the bill is very much improved and is 
 thought by many to be now good enough. I must say I think it would do much good, 
 and that New England would reap a great harvest by having the bill adopted as it now 
 is. . . . If nothing better can be had I am fully of opinion, both as regards the true 
 interests of the country — and the political effects of accepting or rejecting it, that it 
 will be wise to take it. This bill if adopted as amended will keep the South and West 
 in debt to New England the next hundred years. I wrote you several days since and 
 have had no reply to the question whether a bill would be obtained this Session." 
 (Ogg Collection of Webster MSS.) November 16, 1838, Adams wrote in his diary: 
 Abbott Lawrence "has been for many years devoted to Webster, and the main pillar 
 of his support, both pecuniary and political." (Vol. x, 43.) 
 
 ' The Hartford Times, March i, 1830, spoke of Foot as being "known now in the 
 Senate as the humble tool of Webster." The Louisville Public Advertiser, May 27, 
 1830, referred to Webster as having failed "in the maneuver Foot made for him." 
 
28 TEE INFLUENCE OF TEE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 resolution to the tariff interests. Indeed, the contrary might be 
 presumed. Of course New England denied the imputations made 
 against her.^ Pohtical economists of Loria's school would view 
 Foot's proceeding as an attempt to guarantee the existence of the 
 capitalistic economy in the East "by the exclusion of the laborer 
 from access to the productive powers of the soil." ^ 
 
 Benton attacked Foot's resolution, December 30, 1829, because 
 he regarded it as a direct blow against the growth of the West. " It 
 was clear," he declared, "that the effect, if the resolution should 
 lead to correspondent legislation, would be to check emigration to 
 the Western States." * He recounted the attempts of the North 
 Atlantic States in the past to check the growth of the west,* and 
 referred especially to Mr. Rush's recent Treasury Report,^ as a 
 clear enunciation of the whole idea. "The manufactories," he con- 
 tinued, "want poor people to do the work for small wages; these 
 poor people wish to go to the West and get land; to have flocks and 
 herds — to have their own fields, orchards, gardens, and meadows 
 — their own cribs, bams, and dairies; and to start their children 
 on a theater where they can contend with equal chances with other 
 peoples' children for the honors and dignities of the country. This 
 is what the poor people wish to do. How to prevent it — hoW to 
 keep them from straying off in this manner — is the question. The 
 late Secretary of the Treasury could discover no better mode than 
 in the idea of a bounty upon non-emigration in the shape of protec- 
 tion to . . . domestic manufactures. A most complex scheme of 
 
 ' New York Advertiser, February 12, 1830, repeated in Boston Advertiser, February 
 15, 1830; Boston Courier, January 26, 1830; Lowell Journal, February 17, 1830. 
 ' Loria, Economic Foundations of Society, $. 
 ' Cong. Debates, 21st Cong., ist Sess., 4; see also 22-23. 
 
 * Ibid., 24-26. 
 
 • " It cannot be overlooked," wrote Rush in his report, December 8, 1827, " that the 
 price at which fertile tracts of land may be bought of the Government . . . operate as 
 a perpetual allurement to their purchase. ... It has served, and still serves, to draw, 
 in an annual stream, the inhabitants from a majority of the States . . . into the settle- ' 
 ment of fresh lands, lying still farther and farther off. ... It is not imagined that it 
 would ever be practicable, even if it were desirable, to turn this stream of immigration 
 aside; but resources open through the influence of the laws, in new fields of industry, 
 to the inhabitants of the States already sufficiently peopled to enter upon them, might 
 operate to lessen in some degree, and usefully lessen, its absorbing force." {Annals of 
 Cong., 20th Cong., ist Sess., 2831-32.) 
 
PUBLIC LANDS AND TARIFF 2g 
 
 injustice which taxes the South to injure the West to pauperize 
 the poor of the North! All this is bad enough, but it is a trifle, a 
 lame, weak, and impotent contrivance, compared to the scheme 
 which is now on the table. This resolution which we are now con- 
 sidering is the true measure for supplying the poor people which 
 the factories need. It proposes to take away the inducement to emi- 
 gration. It takes all the fresh lands out of the market. It stops 
 the surveys, abolishes the office of Surveyor-General, confines the 
 settlements, limits the sales to the refuse of iimiunerable pickings, 
 and thus annihilates the very object of attraction — breaks and 
 destroys the magnet which was drawing the people of the North- 
 east to the blooming regionsof the West." ^ Benton considered that ' 
 the West alone was not strong enough to meet the crisis, and that 
 they must look for help where they had obtained it before, from 
 the solid South and the scattering Democratic reinforcements in 
 the Northeast.^ 
 
 Robert Y. Hayne, Senator from South Carolina, the next day 
 accepted the r61e of friend to the West which Benton had ascribed 
 to the South. He denovmced the policy of those who desired to 
 make the public lands the source of a great fund for permanent rev- 
 enue, or to dispose of them so as to preserve a suitable laboring 
 population for great manufacturing establishments.^ He advocated 
 rather the poHcy of administering the public lands " chiefly with a 
 view to the creation, within reasonable periods, of great and flour- 
 ishing communities, to be formed into free and independent States; 
 to be invested in due season with the control of all lands within 
 their respective limits." ^ Hayne opposed the attitude of the North 
 Atlantic States toward the public lands, not because he wanted the 
 development of the West, but because the limiting of sales and the 
 distribution of their net proceeds, besides affecting Southern tariff 
 interests, would tend toward the consolidation of the Government, • 
 and be fatal to the independence and sovereignty of the States. ^ 
 
 Hayne, in joining Benton to resist Eastern aggression, was 
 understood by contemporaries to be offering an alliance of the 
 
 ' Cong. Debates, 21st Cong., ist Sess., 24. ' Ibid.,- 27. » Ibid., 34. 
 
 * Ibid., 35. Hayne did n't favor gratuitous cession to the States, but cession for a 
 reasonable price. 
 
30 THE INFLUENCE OP THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 South to the West. ' This was not said in so many words, but every ^ 
 one saw that he was trying to point out to the West that both the 
 South and the West had a common ground of muon in their opposi- 
 tion to the tariff party of the North Atlantic States, who were injur- 
 ing the West by trying to prevent their laboring population from 
 emigrating and were oppressing the South by their high protection 
 policy. It was generally believed that the terms of this sectional 
 compact were for the South to give the public lands to the West, 
 provided the West would go with the South in obtaining some 
 modification of the tariff.^ Some thought that Hajoie was trjdng 
 also to get the assistance of the West for the election of Calhoim to 
 the presidency in 1832.^ The New York Daily Advertiser, declared 
 that " Hayne said enough to give a clew to a combination which Mr. 
 Calhoun and his party are attempting to form with the West," and 
 that "Mr. Calhoim is to mount the Western land question as a 
 hobby at the approaching presidential election." ^ The attempt of 
 the Washington Telegraph to arouse the Jackson party to regard 
 Webster's attack on the South and offer of protection to the West 
 as an assault by the coalition party on the Jackson party,^ possibly 
 with the intention of'imiting the administration party under Cal- 
 houn's banner to resist federal attack, would support this view. 
 Three months later, Duff Green wrote Ninian Edwards that Cal-~ 
 
 • New York Evening Post, February 10, 1830, quoting the Philadelphia Gazette; 
 Charleston Mercury, January 29, 1830; Washington Telegraph, January 23, 1830; 
 Louisville Public Advertiser, February 22, 1830. 
 
 '^ New York Commercial Advertiser, January 27, 1830; repeated in Boston Courier, 
 February 6, 1830, and Maysville Eagle, February 16, 1830; New England Palladium, 
 January 26, 1830. J.Q.Adams to Alexander H.Everett, April 15,1^^0, Am. Eist. Rev., 
 XI, 335 ; Address of Essex County National Republican Convention to electors of 
 Essex County, March 18, 1830. 
 
 " New York Daily Advertiser, February s and 25, 1830; Louisville Public Advertiser, 
 February 22, 1830; Charleston Courier, February 4, March 27, 1830; New England 
 Palladium, March g, 1830; Adams, Memoirs, February 19, 1830, vni, 190. 
 
 ' January 26, 1830. 
 
 "> January 26, 1830. The New York Courier and Enquirer, the special organ of Van 
 Buren and Jackson, considered Webster's attack as one of the attempts of the coali- 
 tion party to stir up sectional excitement (February 2, 16, 1830), by which they ex- 
 pected to regain power; it dwelt on the inflamed condition of the country prepara- 
 tory to proposing the renomination of Jackson as the panacea, for he alone could 
 quiet the storm. {Ibid., March 16, 1830.) 
 
PUBLIC LANDS AND TARIFF 3 1 
 
 houn, as the candidate of the South and West, would "rally the 
 South upon the subject of the Tariff and Western Lands." ^ 
 
 Webster heard with alarm Hayne's offer of alliance to the West, 
 and endeavored to defeat the proposed union by denying that 
 the Northeastern section of the Union had at any time shown hos- 
 tility toward Western interests, and by maintaining, on the other 
 hand, that it had been the constant friend of the West at all times, 
 that the South had been hostile to it, and that there were no grounds 
 for asserting the contrary.^ Webster then changed the subject to 
 the question of state sovereignty which Hayne had mentioned the 
 day before, and devoted the rest of his speech to a plea for the 
 national interpretation of the Constitution. He ended by moving 
 the indefinite postponement of Foot's resolution.^ Benton at once 
 rebutted Webster's claim that New England had been the protec- 
 tor of the West, and proceeded to argue by repeated cases that it 
 was the South, rather, who had been the friend of the West. He 
 cited the graduation bill, Hunt's resolution, and Foot's resolution 
 as putting the seal on the relative affection which the South and 
 East had for the West.* Then he declined " as publicly as it was 
 proffered, the honor of that alliance which," he considered, had the 
 day before been "vouchsafed to the West, if not in direct terms, at 
 least by implication which no one misimderstood." ' Then followed 
 bitter arguments by the representatives of the two Atlantic sections 
 i/apon the claims which each had upon the confidence of the West.* 
 Both the East and South were trying to prevent the alliance of the 
 other with the West. "Nothing can more clearly demonstrate," 
 declared the Washington correspondent of the Philadelphia Gazette, 
 
 ' Edwards Papers, 489. ^ Cong. Debates, 21st Cong., ist Sess., 39-40, 64-66. 
 
 ' Ibid., 41. Foot's resolution was finally tabled in pursuance of Webster's motion 
 on May 21, 1830, without a vote. (,Ibid., 452.) Benton, however, had pointed out in 
 debate that "so far as we can discover, without the report of yeas and nays, the 
 Northeast, with the exception of the Senator from New Hampshire [Woodbury], are 
 against us,'' and the South are "imanimous for us.'' (Ibid., 117.) 
 
 « Ibid., 102-18. J 
 
 ' Ibid., 97. See also Washington Telegraph, January 23, February 20, 1830; 
 Charleston Mercury, January 29, 1830; Philadelphia Gazette, in New York Even- 
 ing Post, February 10, 1830. 
 
 ' Philadelphia Gazette, in New York Evening Post, February 10, 1830; Banner of the 
 Constitution, in Charleston Mercury, February 4, 1830. 
 
1/ 
 
 32 THE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 "the general consciousness of the rising power and approaching 
 ascendency of the Western portion of the Union than such an argu- 
 ment. It seems conceded that the sceptre of dominion is passing 
 West rapidly, and that the Atlantic States are contending already 
 which shall stand first in the affections of their future rulers." ^ 
 
 All agreed that Webster was tr)dng to defeat the proposed com- 
 bination between the South and West, because it endangered the 
 protective tariff.^ In addition, the administration newspapers 
 construed Webster's step as a coaKtion move, because the union of 
 feehng and action between the South and the West, which the de- 
 bate on Foot's resolution was exhibiting, would destroy the plans of 
 the opposition for regaining control.' "Webster's part," declared 
 Benton the very next day, "was that of a prudent commander — 
 to extricate his friends from a perilous position; his mode of doing it 
 was iagenious, that of starting a new subject, and moving the in- 
 definite postponement of the impending one. His attack upon the 
 South was a cannonade, to divert the attention of the assailants; 
 his concluding motion for indefinite postponement, a signal of 
 retreat and dispersion to his entangled friends." ^ Thus Webster 
 attacked Hayne and not Benton, because Hajme gave him the 
 opening for changing the subject to consolidation.^ Besides, Hayne 
 was offering the alliance to the West. Webster could not have 
 attacked Benton, in spite of his being the original accuser of the 
 East, because Webster still wanted to keep the West close to the 
 East on the basis of internal improvements and a protective tariff. 
 
 The success of Webster was variously interpreted. His party 
 newspapers maintained that he had defeated the projected alliance 
 between the South and the West,® and declared that the adminis- 
 
 • As quoted in New York Evening Post, February lo, 1830. 
 
 2 New England Palladium, January 21, 1830; Maysville Eagle, February 16, 1830; 
 New York Commercial Advertiser, January 27, 1830; Washington Telegraph, February 
 20, 1830. 
 
 ' Philadelphia Gazette, as quoted in New York Evening Post, February 10, 1830; 
 Louisville Public Advertiser, February 17, 1830; United States Telegraph, January 26, 
 February 10, 1830; Eastern Argus, Portland, February 5, 1830; Boston Statesman, 
 March 6, 1830. 
 
 • Cong. Debates, 20th Cong., ist Sess., 96. 
 ' Richmond Enquirer, February 13, 1830. 
 
 « New England Palladium, January 26, March 9, 1830; Independent Chronicle and 
 
PUBLIC LANDS AND TARIFF 33 
 
 tration party regretted that the debate had ever taken place.^ 
 Henry Clay also believed that Hayne had not succeeded in detach- 
 ing the West from the East.^ John Quincy Adams, on the other 
 hand, had a different opinion. April 15, 1830, he wrote Alexander H. 
 Everett, editor of the North American Review, that if "the mutual 
 surrender of the Public Lands to the West and of the American 
 System to the South ... is not already consiunmated beyond re- 
 demption, nothing can save them but a complete and fearless 
 exposure of the nefarious conspiracy now in the full tide of success- 
 ful experiment against them." * 
 
 That the aUiance of the South and West had not been defeated 
 
 As seen by the vote on the passage of Benton's graduation bill ^ in 
 
 "^ the Senate, May 7, 1830.^ The Western Senators, except Burnett, 
 
 of Ohio, voted for it unanimously. All the Senators south of the 
 
 Potomac were in favor of it except two, and one of these, Tyler, of 
 
 Boston Patriot, March 6, 1830; New York Commercial Advertiser, January 27, 1830; 
 Detroit Journal and Michigan Advertiser, March 20, 1833; Address of Essex County 
 National Republican Convention to the electors, March 18, 1830. 
 
 ' United States Gazette, January 27, 1830; New England Palladium, February s, 
 1830; Alexandria Gazette, March 4, 1830. 
 
 2 Calvin Colton, Life, Correspondence, and Speeches of Henry Clay, iv, 267. 
 
 ' Am. Hist. Rev.,xi, 335-36. May 22, 1830, Adams wrote in his diary. "In con- 
 versing with Mr. Rush upon the prospects of the country we agreed . . . that the 
 PubUc Lands will be given away.'' (Memoirs, vm, 229.) 
 
 * Benton had reintroduced his graduation bill, December 16, 1829 (Senate Journal, 
 2ist Cong., ist Sess., 427), with the following additions: The actual settler was to be 
 given a preference in obtaining his quarter-section when land was put on sale, and was 
 to pay twenty-five cents less an acre than the graduated price; a donation of eighty 
 acres was to be made to poor settlers; and the States were to use the lands ceded to 
 them for education and internal improvements, and refund to the United States the 
 cost of surveying (Senate Bills and Resolutions, 21st Cong., ist Sess., no. s). The bill 
 was later reduced by the friendly amendments of Hayne and Woodbury (Cong. De- 
 bates, 2ist Cong., ist Sess., 413) to the two main provisions: First, all lands, subject to 
 private sale at $1.25 an acre since June 30, 1827, may, after June 30, 1830, be entered 
 at $1; second, heads of families, single men over twenty one, and widows may enter a 
 quarter-section of land that has been offered at $1 an acre and remains unsold, at the 
 price of $.75 an acre, on condition that they shall cultivate the same for five years. 
 (United States Telegraph, May 7, 1830; New England Palladium, May ir, 1830.) 
 
 ' The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 24 to 22. (Cong. Debates, 21st Cong., ist 
 Sess., 427. See also United States Telegraph, May 7, 1830; Charleston Mercury, May 
 12, 1830; New England Palladium, May 11, 1830; New Orleans Courier, May 16, 1830; 
 Boston Statesman, May 15, 1830.) 
 
\/ 
 
 34 THE INFLUENCE OF TEE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 Virginia, voted on all preliminary questions with the friends of the 
 bill. Calhoun voted with some of the friends of the measure, on an 
 amendment to make the bill more acceptable and insure its final 
 passage. All the Senators north of the Potomac voted against the 
 bill except Woodbury, of New Hampshire. Itspassagein theSenate 
 was signaled by the United States Telegraph as marking an era in , 
 the legislation of Congress on the public lands by the establishment \/ 
 of two great principles: first, that the actual settlers were to have a 
 preference in the purchase of public lands; and in the second place, 
 that refuse land was to be sold at a lower price than new land.^ 
 Benton was satisfied ^ with his bill as amended, since the reductions 
 in his original bill would not have begun to operate at once, and he 
 was confident of getting supplemental legislation in the next Con- 
 gress. The South acted with the West in support of the graduation 
 bill in the House, but even this combination was unable to over- 
 come the larger proportionate representation of the North Atlantic 
 States, and Benton's bill was tabled by a vote of 82 to 68, on May 
 29, 1830.' Thus the alliance of the South and West was in full oper- 
 ation by the end of the first session of the Twenty-first Congress. 
 
 Both the graduation bill and the New England resolutions bad 
 been attempts to solve the land question, but sectional politics had 
 defeated both plans. 
 
 The South and West continued to act together in 1832 when the 
 tariff was up for settlement. This is shown by the reference,* 
 March 22, 1832, to the Committee on Manufactures, of both Clay's 
 and Hayne's tariff resolutions and the question of the reduction of 
 the price of public lands and of cession to the States. The Southern 
 and Western Senators, who argued for this reference, gave as their 
 reasons that the public lands were a source of revenue to the extent 
 of three million dollars a year, and therefore must be considered in 
 the rearrangement of the financial system by the financial Commit- 
 tee of the Senate, the Committee on Manufactures; that each sec- 
 
 ' May 7, 1830. ' Cong. Delates, 21st Cong., ist Sess., 413. 
 
 ' House Journal, 21st Cong., ist Sess., 780. An analysis of the vote shows: — 
 North AUantic South Atlantic Southwest Northwest 
 
 Yes 59 IS 8 = 82 
 
 No 14 23 14 17 = 68 
 
 « Cong. Debates, 22d Cong., ist Sess,, 614, 625-26. 
 
PUBLIC LANDS AND TARIFF 
 
 35 
 
 tion should be favored in the financial readjustment; that the West 
 would not be benefited by the projected reduction of the tariff for 
 revenue, so its share should be the reduction in the price of lands; 
 and that the subject of public lailds had already been united with 
 the American system by its friends since Rush's report in 1827.^ 
 When the vote on this motion was taken ^ several deeper influences 
 helped its passage; first, the Southern Senators voted for it "to 
 enlist the members coming from the new States into the ranks of 
 those opposed to the tariff, by holding out the inducements that 
 they would receive the exclusive benefit of lands"; ^ secondly, cer- 
 
 ' Cong. Debates, 2 2d Cong., ist Sess., 
 
 , 623-38. 
 
 
 ' Ibid., 638. 
 
 
 
 
 7u 
 
 
 No 
 
 
 Benton, Mo. 
 
 Jackson man. 
 
 Bell, N.H. 
 
 Clay man. 
 
 Bibb, Ky. 
 
 Jackson man. 
 
 Buckner, Mo. 
 
 Clay man. 
 
 Brown, N.C. 
 
 Jackson man. 
 
 Clay, Ky. 
 
 Clay man. 
 
 • Dallas, Pa. 
 
 Jackson man. 
 
 Clayton, Del. 
 
 Clay man. 
 
 •.Dudley, N.Y. 
 
 Jackson man. 
 
 Dickerson, N.J. 
 
 Jackson man. 
 
 Ellis, Miss. 
 
 Jackson man. 
 
 Ewing, Ohio. 
 
 Clay man. 
 
 Forsyth, Ga. 
 
 Jackson man. 
 
 Foot, Conn. 
 
 Clay man. 
 
 Grundy, Tenn. 
 
 Jackson man. 
 
 Frelinghuysen, N.J. 
 
 Clay man. 
 
 Hayne, S.C. 
 
 Calhoun man. 
 
 Holmes, Me. 
 
 Clay man. 
 
 Hendricks, Ind. 
 
 Clay man. 
 
 Johnston, La. 
 
 Clay man. 
 
 Hill, N.H. 
 
 Clay man. 
 
 Knight, R.I. 
 
 Clay man. 
 
 Kane, HI. 
 
 Jackson man. 
 
 Prentiss, Vt. 
 
 Clay man. 
 
 King, Ala. 
 
 Calhoun man. 
 
 Robbins, R.I. 
 
 Clay man. 
 
 Mangum, N.C. 
 
 Jackson man. 
 
 Ruggles, Ohio. 
 
 Clay man. 
 
 Marcy, N.V. 
 
 Jackson man. 
 
 Seymour, Vt. 
 
 Clay man. 
 
 MiUer, S.C. 
 
 Calhoun man. 
 
 Silsbee, Mass. 
 
 Clay man. 
 
 Moore, Ala. 
 
 Jackson man. 
 
 Sprague, Me. 
 
 Clay man. 
 
 Foindexter, Miss. 
 
 Calhoun man. 
 
 Tomlinson, Conn. 
 
 Clay man. 
 
 Robinson, 111. 
 
 Jackson man. 
 
 Waggaman, La, 
 
 Clay man. 
 
 Smith, Md. 
 
 Jackson man. 
 
 ■" Webster, Mass. 
 
 Clay man. 
 
 Tazewell, Va. 
 
 Calhoun man. 
 
 ■^ _, ao 
 
 
 Tipton, Ind. 
 
 Clay man. 
 
 
 
 Troup, Ga. 
 
 Jackson man. 
 
 
 
 •Tyler, Va. 
 
 Calhoun man. 
 
 
 
 White, Tenn. 
 
 Jackson man. 
 
 
 
 • Wilkins, Pa. 
 
 Jackson man. 
 
 
 
 26 
 
 For the party politics of this period I have used Edgar E. Robinson's Origin of the 
 Whig Party (A.M. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1910) and the Congressional 
 Biographical Directory. Newspaper references have also been of value, such as Wash- 
 ington Globe, Oct. 31, 1831, Feb. 21, 1833, Dec. 22, 1836; Boston Statesman, May 29, 
 1830; Savannah Georgian, Feb. 6, 1830; New England Palladium, April 30, 1830. 
 
 ' Ibid., 639. Clay spoke of this influence in a letter to Francis Brooke, March 28, 
 1832, as a development of a scheme " which I have long since suspected — that certain 
 portions of the South were disposed to purchase support to the anti-tariff doctrines by 
 a total sacrifice of the Public Lands to the States within which they are situated." 
 (Colton, Clay, iv, 330-31.) All the Southern Senators, who voted for Bibb's resolu- 
 tion, voted against the tariff on July 9, 1832. (Cong. Debates, 22d Cong., ist Sess., 
 1219.) The Western Senators may have been influenced to vote in favor to assist 
 the development of the Southern and Western alliance. 
 
36 THE INFLUENCE OF TEE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 tain Western tariff Senators voted for it, because they hoped thereby 
 to force Clay to concede them something on pubhc lands in return 
 for their support of his tariff measure; ' and, finally, many admin- 
 istration Senators voted for it to put Clay, who was a member of 
 'the Committee on Manufactures, in a dehcate position in which he 
 must report imfavorably to the Western States and so weaken his 
 chances as a presidential candidate in the fall.^ 
 
 Clay's answer to this sectional and party move was a report ^ 
 on the public lands, April i6, separate from one on the tariff, and a 
 recommendation of a compromise bill.^ In his report Clay argued 
 against the advisability of reducing the price of land o/of ceding it 
 to the new States. He considered that a further reduction in price 
 would be required by public interest only if the Government was 
 demanding more than a fair price for the land, or if the existing 
 price was delajang harmfully the settlement of the new States and 
 Territories. He contended that the large quantities of public lands 
 remaining unsold did not mean that the price was too high, but 
 that emigration had been totally imable to absorb the vast quantity 
 offered; that the rapid increase of the sales of the pubhc lands, from 
 $1,018,308.75 in 1828 to approximately $3,000,000 in 1831, was a 
 criterion of the fairness of the price; that a reduction in the price of 
 the public lands would reduce the value of land in private owner- 
 ship in the same State, in near-by States, and probably in the whole 
 West; and that, since the greatest emigration at that time was 
 from Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, a reduction in price would 
 serve as a bounty to further emigration, causing more lands within 
 these States to be thrown on the market, and therefore lessening 
 the value of their lands, and draining them of population and 
 money. He reasoned that the reduction of the price of public land 
 
 ' Benton, Hendricks, Robinson, and Tipton, who voted for the passage of the tariff 
 bill in the Senate on July 9, 1832, may have been influenced by this consideration. 
 
 ' Clay to Brooke, March 28, 1832 (Colton, Clay, iv, 330-31); National Intelligencer, 
 July 4, 1832; New York Courier and Enquirer, March 26, 1832; New York Daily 
 Advertiser, March 22, April 20, 1832. 
 
 ' American State Papers, Public Lands, vi, 441-51. 
 
 * Clay to Brooke, March 28, 1832: "I think I shall disappoint the design by present- 
 ing such views of that great interest [public lands] as will be sustained by the nation." 
 (Colton, Clay, iv, 331.) 
 
PUBLIC LANDS AND TARIFF Z7 
 
 was not necessary to accelerate the population of Ohio, Indiana, 
 Illinois, Missouri, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, because 
 these States already had an average increase of eighty-five per cent, 
 while the States having no public lands were increasing at the rate 
 of only twenty-five per cent. The cession of the public lands to the 
 several States in which they lay on reasonable terms was a momen- 1 
 tous measure, meaning as it did the 340,871,753 acres within the/ 
 present States and Territories and the 750,000,000 outside. Its only 
 justification would be the unwise and defective government admin^ 
 istration of the public domain, but this had always given general sat- 
 isfaction. If it were done, competition between States as to price, 
 so as to get more people and more money to pay its obligations 
 to the central Government, would result, collisions between States 
 would foUow, and a new and dangerous debtor relation to an im- 
 mense amount would be created between the new States and the 
 central Government. This debtor relation would furm'sh a bond of 
 union between the new States, all at a distance from the center of 
 federal control. If the new States failed to pay interest and princi- 
 pal, what would the central Government do? "Either Congress, 
 tired of repeated petitions, would sponge the debt; or, if Congress 
 attempted to enforce its payment, another and worse alternative 
 would be embraced." ^ If the proposed cession were made at a 
 nominal price, it would be a violation of the express provision of the 
 original cession of the States to Congress, for the common benefit, 
 and also unjust to the old States. Clay ended by recommending 
 "An act to appropriate for a limited time [five years] the proceeds 
 of the sales of the public lands of the United States [to be withdrawn 
 in case of war], after deducting an additional ten per cent to be set 
 aside for the new States, for a division among aU the States accord- 
 ing to their Federal ratio, for the purpose of education, internal 
 improvements or colonization, or the reduction of any state debt, 
 as each State judging for itself shall deem most conformable with 
 its own interest and policy." ^ 
 
 We have already met with the distribution project in the twenties 
 and in the House of Representatives in 1830. Clay simply took 
 one of the Eastern solutions of the land question, and moulded it to 
 ' American State Papers, Public Lands, vi, 447. ' Ibid. 
 
38 THE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 .suit his critical position by adding a bonus for the West. Clay's 
 report certainly suited the tariff element, because it kept up the 
 price of public lands and disposed of the whole income from the 
 public lands, leaving the total revenue to be levied on imported 
 goods; it also suited the North Atlantic States and the old West 
 as a whole, since it insured the national ownership of the public 
 domain, protected their property values, and gave them a large 
 share of the proceeds. Clay's distribution bill seemed to his oppo- 
 nents from a pohtical standpoint a bid for votes in the presidential 
 election by an appeal to sectional and class interest. The Frankfort 
 Argus declared that "it is doubtless the boldest move that ever was 
 made by a candidate for the Presidency. No candidate can outbrag 
 this . . . and so shameless is this overture that a table of dividends 
 is constructed to show each state how much money they wiU get by 
 making Mr. Clay President. ... In fine, this open proposition of 
 Mr. Clay's must convince every friend to the purity of presidential 
 elections, that the Pubhc Lands must be extricated from the hands 
 of presidential speculators with aU possible dispatch." ^ Clay's 
 championship of the distribution plan again brought to the front 
 the prominent importance of the pubhc land question. Clay him- 
 self declared at this time that no subject which had presented itself 
 to Congress was of greater magnitude.'' His organ, the National 
 Intelligencer, stated that "until very recently we have thought and 
 spoken of only two great questions — tariff and bank. A third has 
 unexpectedly grown into an importance not inferior to either of the 
 others — the subject of Public Lands and the distribution of the 
 proceeds."^ The New York Courier and Enquirer bore similar 
 testimony: "The question of the Public Lands will go further in 
 engendering hostile thoughts and views, in raising up one section of 
 the country against another, and will tend further and faster to 
 disunion than anything which has latterly occupied the attention 
 of the American people." ^ 
 
 The South continued to act with the West through the first ses- 
 sion of the Twenty-second Congress. Both were opposed to the 
 
 ■ May 2, 1832; see also Boston Advocate, July 9, 1832; Detroit Democratic Free 
 Press, August 9, 1832. 
 2 Cong. Debates, 22d Cong., ist Sess., 1098. • July 4, 1832. * December 26, 1832. 
 
PUBLIC LANDS AND TARIFF 39 
 
 distribution of the proceeds of the public lands; the South because it 
 assisted the perpetuation of a high tariff/ the West because it was a 
 death-blow to any reduction in the price of land.^ Benton charac- 
 terized the distribution bill as a "Land-tariff Bill," ^ because it was 
 intended in the first place to dispose of the surplus by distributing 
 the land revenue, so the duties on imports could be kept up; and, 
 in the second place, to keep up the price of land to prevent the emi- 
 gration of laboring people from the manufacturing States. Regard- 
 ing Clay's bill as defeating their plans, the South and West suc- 
 ceeded in referring it, May 9, by the casting vote of Calhoun,* to 
 the Committee on Public Lands, which recommended ^ instead that 
 an amendment, to reduce the price of fresh lands to one dollar per 
 acre and the price of lands five years or more in the market to fifty 
 cents per acre, be added to the tariff bill reported by the Committee 
 on Manufactures. The Committee on Public Lands also proposed 
 that Clay's distribution bill be amended so as to strike out the whole 
 except the ten per cent allowance to the new States, and to increase 
 that to fifteen per cent. That these recommendations and the report 
 by the Committee on Public Lands were the fruit of the South- 
 em and Western understanding, is shown by the fact that King, 
 of Alabama, its chairman, was a Calhoun man,^ and that the hand 
 of Benton was seen in the report.' In spite of the opposition of the 
 South and West, Clay succeeded in passing his distribution bill in 
 the Senate, July 3, by a vote of 26 to 18.*, Its passage was clearly 
 
 1 Charleston Mercury, May 3, 1832. 
 
 ' Cong. Debates, asd Cong., ist Sess., 785-86, 1150. • Ibid., 1151. 
 
 * Ibid., go7. The alignment was practically the same as on March 22, except that 
 Dallas and Wilkins, of Pennsylvania, had changed sides; Tyler, Dudley, and Webster 
 were absent; Naudain (Delaware), absent March 22, was present, voting Nay. 
 
 5 Ibid., Appendix, 118, May 18, 1832. A report accompanied the recommendation. 
 {Ibid., 118-27.) 
 
 ' National Intelligencer, October 31, 1831. 
 
 ' Cong. Debates, 22d Cong., ist Sess., iiii. 
 
 8 Senate Journal, 22d Cong., ist Sess., 394. An analysis of the vote shows: — 
 
 
 Yes 
 
 Jackson 
 
 Clay 
 
 North Atlantic 
 
 18 
 
 4 
 
 14 
 
 South Atlantic 
 
 I 
 
 
 I 
 
 Old West (Ohio and 
 
 
 
 
 Kentucky) 
 
 3 
 
 
 3 
 
 New West (Indiana, 
 
 
 
 
 Illinois, and Missouri) 
 
 I 
 
 
 I 
 
 Southwest 
 
 3 
 
 
 3 
 
 Calhoun 
 
 26 
 
 4 XI 
 
 No Jackson Clay Calhoun 
 
 <; s 4 
 
 3 s 
 
 4 3 
 
 18 
 
 »^ 
 
40 THE INFLUENCE OF TEE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 due to the unanimity of the Clay party in its favor, assisted by its 
 appeal to the sectional interest of certain Eastern Jackson Sena- 
 tors, Dallas and Wilkins, of Pennsylvania, Dickerson, of New Jer- 
 sey, and Dudley, of New York. The Administration did their best 
 to defeat the measure and so prevent Clay from gaining votes there- 
 by in the presidential election, as shown by the nays of Hill, of 
 New Hampshire, and Marcy, of New York. The Administration, 
 aided by the sectional opposition of the South ^ and West, was able 
 to carry postponement in the House of Representatives, July 3.^ 
 Benton's attempt to pass a graduation amendment to the distribu^^ 
 tion bill failed by a vote of 21 to 24.^ If the three Southerners who ' 
 voted against it had voted for it and Calhoun had given the decid- 
 ing vote, it would have passed. The West, not getting anything| 
 positive from the South, abandoned the South and voted for the si 
 tariff of 1832,* thus bringing to an end the alliance between the r 
 South and the West. 
 
 The Administration had done little for the new West up to this 
 point. Van Buren, for political reasons, had eliminated Ninian 
 Edwards and his plan, and Jackson in his messages had made no 
 
 ' Of course the South voted against it primarily to protect themselves. The Charles- 
 ton Mercury, July lo, 1832, expressed its gratification at the postponement of distri- 
 bution in the House of Representatives, though "the Snake is only scotched, not 
 killed." 
 
 ' House Journal, 2 2d Cong., ist Sess., 1076. An analysis of the vote shows: — 
 
 North Allanlic South Adantic Old West New West Southwest 
 
 1 16 from N.Y. 
 Yea 35 j 7 from Pa. 35 6 4 n = 91 
 
 4 from N.H. 
 No SS 10 19 _ 4 = 88 
 
 Webster declared that the bill was vigorously opposed by the main body of the 
 friends of the Administration in the House of Representatives. (Speech at National 
 Republican Convention, Worcester, October r2, 1832.) Robbins, Senator from Rhode 
 Island, and Surges, Congressman from Rhode Island, stated that Clay's bill was de- 
 feated in the House of Representatives by Jackson's partisans. (Address to citizens of 
 Rhode Island, Pamphlet, Providence, 1832.) The New York Daily Advertiser, July 7, 
 1832, commented on the vote as follows: "Most of the regency party in New York 
 voted for postponement, and on the vote to reconsider (July 4. Refused by a vote of 
 100 to 88. Cong. Debates, 22d Cong., ist Sess., 3853) all the regency votes in New York 
 were against." 
 
 ' Cong. Debates, 22A Cong., ist Sess., 1164. 
 
 * Cong. Debates, 22d Cong., ist Sess., 1219. Benton, of Missouri, Robinson, of Illi- 
 nois, and Tipton, of Indiana, abandoned Calhoun on this vote. 
 
PUBLIC LANDS AND TARIFF 4I 
 
 recommendations on the public land question. To be sure, Wood- 
 bury, a Jackson Senator from New Hampshire, had helped the pas- 
 sage of Benton's graduation bill in 1830,' and several others north 
 of the Potomac, who had voted against its passage, had voted with 
 the friends of the measure in its earlier stages and had prevented 
 its being destroyed by reference and postponements.^ The views 
 of the Administration on public lands in the first session of the 
 Twenty-second Congress were probably represented by Louis 
 McLane's plan in his Treasury Report, December 7, 183 1. He I 
 favored the cession for a fair price of the public lands to the States 
 in which they lay and the distribution of the proceeds among aU the 
 States. Such an arrangement, he argued, would dispose of the pub- 
 lic land revenue which was not necessary after the debt was paid, 
 and would stop the friction between the new States and the Fed- 
 eral Government regarding public lands.^ This recommendation of 
 McLane was not pushed by the Jackson party, possibly because 
 pro-Western land legislation was regarded as necessary by Jackson 
 for campaign material, since the settler West would probably 
 remain true to him without any immediate action. It certainly did 
 not receive any support from the Calhoun or Jackson men of the 
 South, because the revenue in such a case would have to come from 
 the tariS alone, and the South would not be sure of receiving in 
 return any Western assistance for a lower tariff. As has already 
 been shown, the Administration for party reasons had assisted the 
 South and West in the reference of Bibb's resolution to the Com- 
 mittee on Manufactures, and had acted with the South and West 
 in resisting Clay's distribution bill in the Senate and in postponing 
 it in the House of Representatives. Therefore, while acting from 
 the party motive of defeating Clay, the Administration had really 
 in a negative way been helping the settler West. It had also taken 
 positive action by approving King's report from the Committee 
 
 * Cong. Debates, 21st Cong., ist Sess., 413, 427. 
 
 ' Senate Journal, 21st Cong., ist Sess., 286, 291, 292. 
 
 • Cong. Debates, 22d Cong., ist Sess., 29-30. Van Buren had expressed the same 
 views in the Senate, April 21, 1828. The Philadelphia Gazette (New Yorli Evening Post, 
 February 10, 1830) in 1830 stated that Hajme's plan to cede the public lands to the 
 States in which they lay on reasonable terms was "understood to accord with the views 
 of the Administration." 
 
42 THE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 on Public Lands, ^ and possibly by Van Buren's throwing out hints 
 to Western men that favorable pubKc land legislation would form 
 part of the spoils of victory.^, 
 
 If Van Buren had made promises to the West, they were cer- 
 tainly made good by Jackson's recommendations^ on public lands 
 in his message of December 4, 1832. Jackson annoimced that since 
 the national debt was practically paid, Congress might now dispose 
 of the pubKc lands in such a way as best to serve the harmony and 
 general interest of the American people. "It cannot be doubted," 
 he declared, " that the speedy settlement of these lands constitutes 
 the true interest of the Republic. The wealth and strength of a 
 country are its population, and the best part of that population are 
 the cultivators of the soil." * Therefore he gave as his opinion that 
 the true policy for the administration of the public lands was that 
 they " shall cease as soon as practicable to be a source of revenue, ^ 
 and that they be sold to settlers in limited parcels at a price barely 
 sufl&cient to reimburse the United States the expense of the present 
 system and cost arising under our Indian Compacts. The advan- 
 tages of accurate surveys and tmdoubted titles now secured to pur- 
 chasers seemed to forbid the abolition of the present system, 
 because none can be substituted which wiU more perfectly accom- 
 plish these important ends. It is desirable, however, that in con- 
 venient time this machinery be withdrawn from the States and 
 that the right of soil and the future disposition over it be surren- 
 dered to the States respectively in which it lies." ^ Jackson may 
 have been strengthened in his views by the labornewspapers which 
 Evans * sent him, but he certainly took his ideas from the champion 
 of the self-sustaining, land-holding democracy of the West — Ben- 
 ton.'' Although Jackson's recommendations were put in rather 
 general terms at this time, they were given in clearer form in his 
 veto of Clay's distribution bill, December 4, 1833,* and here they ■» 
 
 ' Washington Globe, May 21, 1830. 
 
 ' New York Daily Advertiser, April 20, 1830, July 7, 1832. 
 
 ' Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 11, 600-01. 
 
 * Ibid., 600. ' Ibid., 6oi. 
 
 • J. R. Commons, "Horace Greeley and the Working-Class Origins of the Republi- 
 can Party," Political Science Quarterly, xxiv, no. 3, 478-79. 
 
 ' See suggestion in William C. Verplanck, Political Mirror of Jacksonism, 209. 
 ' Richardson, Messages, iii, 68. 
 
PUBLIC LANDS AND TARIFF 43 
 
 were an exact counterpart of Benton's plan for the disposition of 
 the public lands. Easterners, prejudiced by sectional interest, 
 termed Jackson's recommendations " a giving away of the pub- 
 lic lands," ^ while Westerners were naturally well satisfied.'' ^• 
 
 By the beginning of the second session of the Twenty-second**^ 
 Congress, the two leading parties had definitely taken sides on the 
 public land question. Clay's party supporting the Eastern solution 
 of distributing the proceeds of the public lands, and_ JajcklQn's 
 party championing the Western ^an of reduction in price, cession 
 of ^fuse to the States, and in general of helping the settler to be- 
 come a freeholder. -As in the first session, Clay's distribution bill ' ^ 
 passed the Senate owing to the tmanimous support of his party, 
 with the assistance of the Eastern Jackson men mentioned above, 
 Dallas and WiEuns, of Pennsylvania, Dudley, of New York, and 
 Dickerson, of New Jersey.^ Calhoun and his party, with the excep- 
 tion of Poindexter, of Mississippi, still voted against the measure. 
 The vote of "CSlhoun's third party on the substitution of the bill, 
 reported by the Committee on PubHc Lands, January 24, 1833, 
 reducing the price and granting preemption to actual settlers, 
 showed that the South was no longer acting with the pioneer West.^ 
 While Hayne, of South Carolina, had favored a reduction amend- 
 ment to Clay's distribution bill in the first session, Calhoun now 
 voted against it, probably thinking of it only as a measure that 
 would tend to encourage the extension of free farming areas. This 
 
 ' Journalof John Davis, iii,no. 168,6. (Davis MSS.) Adams, AfewojVj, rx, 236, 248. 
 
 • A. Yell wrote to J. K. Polk, December 18, 1832, referring to the President's mes- 
 sage : "The subject of the Public Lands I like most admirably, that is what every West- 
 em man should desire, but I expect the old States will kick up at it." (Polk MSS.) 
 
 • Clay had introduced it, December 12, 1833 (Cong. Debates, zad Cong., 2d Sess., 
 S); it was reported by the Committee on Public Lands, January 3, 1833, with an 
 amendment substituting a new bill, reducing the price of public lands offered but un- 
 sold to one dollar per acre, selling to actual settlers one hundred and sixty acres at 
 fifty cents an acre, and providing for the disposition of the proceeds by Congress for 
 the general good {Senate Journal, 22d Cong., 2d Sess., 53)- Clay's bill passed the Sen- 
 ate, January 25, 1833, by a vote of 24 to 21 (ibid., 138), and the House of Representa- 
 tives, March i, by a vote of 96 to 40 (Cong. Debates, 22d Cong., 2d Sess., 1920-21). 
 
 • Senate Journal, 22d Cong., 2d Sess., 138. January 25, 1833. 
 
 ' Cong. Debates, 226. Cong., 2d Sess., 229. Adams's opinion that the alliance of the 
 South and West was still in operation was therefore without adequate foundation. 
 {Memoirs, vin, 504. December 13, 1832.) 
 
44 TEE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 change of policy on the part of the South had abready been testified 
 to by Michael Hoffman, Congressman from New York, in his letter 
 to A. C. Flagg, December i8, 1832: "The only real appearance of 
 remaining regard for the Union among the NuUifiers is found in the 
 votes about the Public Lands. I had expected that these would be 
 offered as a donation to squatters and States for recrmts to nullifica- 
 tion." ^ Before Clay's distribution bill was voted on in the House 
 of Representatives, something had happened to reverse entirely the 
 attitude of the South toward the public land question. This was 
 the introduction of the compromise bill by Clay on February 12. 
 Whereas up to this point the passage of a low tariff for the South 
 had been dependent on the passage of Western public land meas- / 
 ures, now the low tariff, as provided by Clay's compromise, was^' 
 linked with the distribution bill, thus causing the South to act with 
 Clay's party instead of with the West. 
 
 Closely connected as the tariff and public lands were in 1832, 
 they were even more intimately related in 1833,^ because Clay and 
 his party regarded the distribution biU as part of the same financial 
 system as the compromise tariff. Calvin Colton states, in his biog- 
 raphy of Clay, that "one essential element and substantive part of 
 his plan, in the device and formation of this measure [compromise 
 bill], was the public land bill then pending, and which was not 
 expected to meet with any obstacle from the President, as his faith 
 was virtually pledged to sanction it in his previous annual mes- 
 sage." ' Jackson had, indeed, recommended that the public lands 
 should "cease as soon as practicable to be a source of revenue," * 
 but he meant by that not the passage of Clay's distribution bill, 
 but the reduction of the price of public lands sold to actual settlers. 
 It is true, however, that Clay regarded the distribution of the pro- 
 
 > V.B. MSS. 
 
 ' The dose relation of tariff and public lands and internal improvements, in the 
 opinion of Webster, is shown in a list of principles, which were probably drawn up as 
 suggestions for the action of the Webster element in the second session. Three of these 
 principles may be summarized as follows: Temporary distribution was favored if it 
 could be passed the second session; if it could not, the tariff was to be reduced still 
 lower. If the land bill should pass, then some measure was to be adopted to limit 
 grants by Congress to such objects of internal improvement as in their nature trans- 
 cend the power of the separate States. (Davis MSS., in, no. 169.) 
 
 ' Colton, Clay, 11, 250. ' Richardson, Messages and Papers, n, 601. 
 
PUBLIC LANDS AND TARIFF 45 
 
 ceeds of the public lands and the compromise tariff as both being 
 parts of the same financial system. On March i, 1842, when intro- 
 ducing his resolutions on the tariff, Clay declared that one of the 
 principles of the compromise act was that after June 30, 1842, 
 "SUCH DUTIES SHOULD BE LAID for the purpose of raismg 
 SUCH revenue as might be necessary for an economic administra- 
 tion of the Government; consequently excluding all resort to inter- 
 nal taxation, or to the proceeds of the public lands." ^ Clay here , 
 interpreted section 3 of the compromise act, which stated, "from 
 and after the day last aforesaid [September 30, 1842, later made 
 June 30, 1842], all duties upon imports shall be laid for the purpose 
 of raising such revenue as may be necessary to an economic admin- 
 istration of the Government," ^ to mean that his public land distri- 
 bution bill had been intended to provide for the temporary distri- 
 bution of the proceeds of the public lands, and that the compromise 
 bill had estabhshed their permanent distribution after June 30, 
 1842. On February 12, 1833, he had indirectly stated as much when 
 introducing the compromise bill: "U the bill which this body passed 
 at the last session of Congress, and has again passed at this session, 
 shall pass the other House, and become a law, and the gradual 
 reduction of duties shall take place which is contemplated by the 
 first section of this bill, we shall have settled two (if not three) of 
 the great questions which have agitated this coimtry, that of the 
 Tariff, of the Public Lands, and I will add of Internal Improve- 
 ments also. For, if there should still be a surplus revenue, that 
 surplus might be applied, imtil the year 1842, to the completion of 
 the works of Internal Improvement already commenced, and, after 
 1842, a reliance for all fimds for Internal Improvement should be 
 placed upon the operation of the Land Bill, to which I have already 
 referred." * 
 
 Further evidence that Clay and his party regarded the distri- 
 bution bill as part of the same financial system as the compromise 
 tariff is given by Clayton, a member of the select committee of the 
 
 • Cong. Globe, 27th Cong., 2d Sess., igs. 
 
 * Cong. Debates, 22d Cong., 2d Sess., 481-82. 
 
 ' Ibid., 464. Since Clay's land bill provided for only five years' distribution, 
 funds for internal improvements would come from public land distribution after 
 June 30, 1842, by virtue of the clause in the compromise act. 
 
46 THE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 Senate to which the compromise bill was referred. He declared, on 
 a later occasion, that "Mr. Clay's bill to distribute the proceeds of 
 the sales of public lands among the States, which passed both 
 houses of Congress about the same time with the compromise itself, 
 was regarded by us as part and parcel oj one great revenue and finan- 
 cial system, which we desired to establish for the benefit of the 
 whole country. While temporarily surrendering the land fund to 
 the States, to which it rightfully belonged in the judgment of the 
 Congress of 1833, we provided, in the compromise act, that there 
 should be a day fixed, at which the land fund should /orez/er cease to 
 be regarded as a source of revenue by the general Government. . . . 
 The compromise act gave to me, as I thought when I voted for it, 
 and to every friend of the protective system, at the same time, a 
 solemn assurance that after June 30, 1842, the land fund should 
 cease to be regarded as a source of revenue, and that all the real 
 wants of the Government should be supphed exclusively from du- 
 ties on imports." ^ Clay contemporaneously supported Clayton's 
 testimony in his letter to him, August 22, 1844: "No man knew 
 better the motives and considerations which prompted its [compro- 
 mise biU] passage than you did, and you have ably and truly ex- 
 posed them." ^ Additional evidence is found in an address of John 
 Quincy Adams to his constituents, September 17, 1842, when he 
 stated that one of the principles of the compromise act was that 
 the whole revenue necessary to an economic administration of the 
 Government should be raised by import duties after June 30, 1842, 
 "No part of the government revenue," he declared, "was intended 
 to be raised from the proceeds of the land sales, for together with 
 the Compromise Act, Congress passed another act for distributing 
 the lands sales proceeds. . . . That act emanated from the same 
 source, and was sanctioned by the same Congress, at the same time 
 with the Compromise Act; and although on another roll of parch- 
 ment as a system of administration formed a part of it." ^ 
 Since Clay and his party held this view, it is reasonable to pre- 
 
 ' Speech of J. M. Clayton at Wilmington, Delaware, June 15, 1844. (Colton, Clay, 
 n, 253, note.) ' Ibid., 259. 
 
 ' Address of J. Q. Adams to his constituents, September 17, 1842. Pamphlet, Bos- 
 ton, 41, 51. 
 
PUBLIC LANDS AND TARIFF 47 
 
 sume that it was understood that Calhoun and his third party- 
 should not stand in the way of the passage of the distribution act, 
 and if need be vote in its favor. Ballagh is of this opinion, for he 
 states that the old South compromised with Clay to secure a low 
 tariff by accepting distribution,^ and Schouler writes that Clay 
 claimed that the passage of this bill was " a part of the compromise 
 arrangement with the Nullifiers." ^ An analysis of votes and con- 
 temporary evidence supports this view. An examination of the 
 vote by which the distribution bill passed the House of Represent- 
 atives, March i, shows that though some of Calhoun's third party 
 voted against it and others were absent, still their assistance was 
 not necessary to the passage of the bill.' On the evening of March 
 I, when the Senate accepted the House amendment to the bill by 
 the vote of 23 to 5, four Calhoun men voted in favor, and not one 
 against.* Furthermore, the United States Telegraph did not oppose 
 the distribution bill, as it had always done in the past, and it 
 strongly denounced Jackson for pocketing the bill.^ Shortly after 
 the close of the session the Charleston Mercury, Calhoun's organ, 
 came out in favor of Clay's bill,* and expressed the beUef that the 
 passage of the tariff bill and the land bill would lead to a union of 
 the South under CaUioim and the West under Clay.' The Wash- 
 ington Globe termed this adoption of Clay's land bill by the Cal- 
 hoim party as a "most extraordinary and anomalous inconsist- 
 ency "; * and went on to say that Calhoim had voted against it, 
 because otherwise his change would have been too sudden and 
 violent. Thus the South had reversed its attitude toward the pub- 
 
 ' J. C. Ballagh, Tariff and Public Lands (Am. Hist. Report, 1898), 241, note i. 
 
 2 " History of the United States," vol. iv, 153. 
 
 " Cong. Debates, 22d Cong., 2d Sess., 1920-21. The arrangement between Clay and 
 Calhoun for the selection of printer in the Senate and House of Representatives fur- 
 nishes proof that Clay and Calhoun were already acting in conjunction on another 
 matter. (Washington Globe, February 20, 1833.) 
 
 ' Cong. Debates, 22d Cong., 2d Sess., 809. 
 
 " March 5, 1833. Jackson's pocl^eting of the distribution bill was approved by 
 Jackson newspapers, and condemned by those of Clay and Calhoun. Washington 
 Telegraph, March s, 1833; Richmond Enquirer, March 9, 1833; New York Daily 
 Advertiser, March 11, 1833; Baltimore Republican, March $, 1833. 
 
 ' Quoted in Washington Globe, March 16, 1833. 
 
 ' Quoted in Baltimore Republican, March 15, 1833. ' March 16, 1833. 
 
48 THE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 lie lands, because it was getting the lower tariff from Clay ajid not 
 from the new West. 
 
 The course of events from 1828 to 1833 displayed the great 
 national importance of the public land question and its close rela- 
 tions with the tariff and sectional politics. As has been shown, the 
 free land ideas of the West were blocked by Eastern opposition, 
 and as yet had not been materially advanced by the alliance of the 
 West with the South or with the Administration. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 PUBLIC LANDS, SURPLUS AND PANIC 
 
 The public lands ceased to be connected with the tariff during 
 the operation of the compromise act, and became related rather to 
 the general financial situation. The pa3mient of the public debt in 
 January, 1835, and the rapidly increasing income from customs 
 and public lands, due to speculative over-confidence, created the 
 problem of a government surplus. The surplus was in reality a 
 paper surplus, consisting to a large degree of expanding bank credits 
 which were protected only by the doubtful securities given by the 
 speculators in return for bank paper, which was being used over 
 and over again to buy more and more public lands at the fixed price 
 of a dollar and a quarter an acre. When the problem of this paper 
 siirplus was presented to Congress in 1836, the West advocated 
 dealing with its soxurce in public land sales. By graduating the 
 price and restricting the sale of lands to actual settlers, speculation 
 would be prevented and the income from the public lands would be 
 reduced to reasonable limits.^ The East, on the other hand, pro- 
 posed to revive Clay'splan for distributing theproceeds.^ Calhoun, 
 
 * American State Papers, Public Lands, vin, 330-32; 877-85; New York Evening 
 Post, February 3, 1837. Benton's graduation bill had made but slight progress in 1834 
 and 183s, in spite of Jackson's indorsement of it (Richardson, Messages and Papers, 
 m, 68; Washington Glohe, December 11, 1833), due chiefly to the Democrats being in a 
 minority in the Senate, and to the promiuenceof the bank question. It was introduced, 
 December 9, 1833 {Cong. Glohe, 23d Cong., ist Sess., 17), referred to the Committee 
 on Public Lands, December 17, 1833 {Senate Journal, 23d Cong., ist Sess., 36), and 
 suppressed by them till the last day of the session (Washington Globe, July 19, 1834). 
 It was reintroduced, December 15, 1834 {Senate Journal, 23d Cong., 2d Sess., 36), 
 reported from the Committee on Public Lands, December 23, 1834 {ibid., 40), and 
 tabled {ibid., 193). 
 
 * Clay introduced his bill, December 29, 1835 {Cong. Glohe, 24th Cong., ist Sess., 
 56); it was reported by the Committee on Public Lands, January 27, 1836 {American 
 State Papers, Public Lands, via, 408-25). The distribution was now partially retro- 
 spective in character, consisting of the proceeds from the sales of the public lands 
 from 1833 to 1837 inclusive. The presence of a surplus rejuvenated Clay's bill, which 
 had not progressed beyond preliminary stages since the second session of the Twenty- 
 
50 TEE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 now that the tariff was adjusted by the compromise act, supported 
 a constitutional amendment providing for a distribution of the pro- 
 ceeds from the public lands until 1842.' In this he was influenced 
 by his desire to afford the Southeastern States the means of financ- 
 ing a railroad to the West.^ 
 
 As in 1832 and 1833, Clay's distribution bill was regarded as 
 a party measure, and as such passed the Senate, May 4, 1836, by a 
 vote of 25 to 20.' All Clay's followers voted for it, and all the Jack- 
 son men voted against it except the Senators from Pennsylvania, 
 who were instructed by their Legislature to vote for it. Calhoun 
 himself voted against it, as he was still true to his constitutional 
 amendment, but he could not prevent his followers from voting in 
 favor. ^ Realizing as in earlier years that the success of distribution 
 woiild checkmate the Western solution of the land question, and 
 fearing that it would be used to win votes for the Whig presidential 
 candidates,' the Democrats as a party succeeded in tabling the bill 
 in the House of Representatives, June 22, by a vote of 124 to 85.^ 
 Jackson had already prepared a draft for a veto in which he de- 
 noxmced the political character of the bill: " The manner, the time, 
 and the circumstances under which this bill is pressed shows the 
 impolicy as well as the impropriety of the measure, and why I 
 
 second Congress. It had been reintroduced, December 10, 1833 {Cong. Debates, 23d 
 Cong., ist Sess., 18), and reported by the Committee on Public Lands, May 2, 1834 
 {ibid., 358-59); it was again proposed, December 16, 1834 {Cong. Debates, 23d Cong., 
 2d Sess., 15), and tabled, February 25, 1835 {Senate Journal, 23d Cong., 2d Sess., 195), 
 probably owing to the hopelessness of passing it over Jackson's veto. 
 
 ' Calhoun introduced a resolution, January 5, 1835, referring the matter to a Select 
 Committee {Senate Journal, 23d Cong., 2d Sess., 79), which reported on it favorably, 
 February 9, 1835 {ibid., 148). 
 
 * Calhoun's Correspondence {Am. Hist. Assoc. Report, iSgg, n, 349-51.) 
 ' Cong. Debates, 24th Cong., ist Sess., 1395. 
 
 * Lynch, Calhoun and Political Parties, 56. 
 
 " Washington Globe, May 9, 1836; Arkansas Gazette, May 17, 1836; Missouri Argus, 
 June 24, 1836; Vandalia State Register, June 24, 1836; S. H. Laughlin to C. Johnson, 
 May 9, 1836 (Polk MSS.); Benton, Thirty Years' View, i, 648. 
 
 ' Cong. Globe, 24th Cong., ist Sess., 460. An analysis of the vote shows: — 
 
 Km No 
 
 Democrats 80 14 
 
 Whigs 13 66 
 
 Doubtful II 5 
 
 104 8s 
 
PUBLIC LANDS, SURPLUS AND PANIC 5 1 
 
 should withhold my approval even if the Constitution should war- 
 rant it. . . . The necessary appropriation for fortifications . . . has 
 beenwithheld this year, . . . although the pressing necessities of the 
 Government urged that they should have been made at an early 
 period of the session to meet the current expenses and debts of the 
 Government ' ... for the purpose, it would appear, that an unus- 
 ual large amount might be accumulated in the Treasury by which 
 the people might be deluded and operated upon in the approaching 
 Presidential election, and by this delusion of millions to buy their 
 suffrages in the support of the opposition. This bill is patronized 
 and originated in the Senate, and supported in the Senate by candi- 
 dates for the Presidency just on the eveof the Presidential election, 
 as the Bill for Rechartering the United States Bank was brought 
 forward before the last Presidential election to operate on the elec- 
 tion for President, to distract and delude the people as was at- 
 tempted before and if passed into a law must in less than two years 
 compel Congress to increase the tariff, which will lead to the; rechar- 
 tering of the United States Bank, and restore the system of internal 
 improvements, consolidate the Government, corrupt the morals of 
 the people and destroy our liberties." ^ 
 
 Congress adjourned, having disposed of the surplus revenue by 
 the deposit act of June 23, 1836, but Jackson was disturbed by the 
 paper aspect of the question. To protect the Treasury and the 
 settlers from the speculators who were using excessive bank credits 
 to buy tremendous amounts of public lands, Jackson issued the 
 specie circular, July 11, 1836.' This order instructed the receivers 
 of public money to accept in pajTnent for the public lands, after 
 August 15, nothing but gold and silver, and in certain cases Vir- 
 ginia land scrip. Until December 15, however, the order was not to 
 apply to actual settlers or to bona fide residents of any State in 
 which the sales were made for amounts of land less than three 
 hundred and twenty acres. The Whigs in the West attacked the 
 
 ' Thus the public lands were proving in this session an obstacle to ordinary legisla- 
 tion. Benton declared that "as late as June isth we had done little but growl and 
 wrangle for the spoils o£ the Treasury." (Cong. Globe, 26th Cong., ist Sess., 85; see 
 also Vandalia State Register, June 24, 1836.) 
 
 * Jackson MSS. (Undated, but June, 1836, presumed.) 
 . ' American State Papers, Public Lands, vni, gio. 
 
52 THE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 circular in the presidential campaign, and possibly gained votes by 
 declaring that the circular withdrew money from circulation and 
 put the citizens of the West at the mercy of speculators.' Western 
 distrust of Van Buren, however, was probably the chief reason why 
 his opponent ran so strongly in the West. In his message to Con- 
 gress in December, Jackson defended the specie circular and spoke 
 with satisfaction of its good results. It had tended, he declared, to 
 keep the public lands open to immigrants at government prices, 
 instead of their being obliged to buy from speculators at double or 
 triple prices. "It remains for Congress," he continued, "if they 
 approve the policy which dictated this order, to follow it up in its 
 various bearings. Much good in my judgment would be produced 
 by prohibiting the sales of Public Lands except to actual settlers at 
 a reasonable reduction of price, and to limit the quantity which 
 shall be sold to them. Although it is believed that the General Gov- 
 ernment never ought to receive anything but the constitutional 
 currency in exchange for the Public Lands, that point would be of 
 less importance if the lands were sold for immediate settlement and 
 cultivation. Indeed, there is scarcely a mischief arising out of our 
 present land system, including the accumulating surplus of rev- 
 enues, which would not be remedied at once by a restriction on land 
 sales to actual settlers, and it promises other advantages to the 
 coimtry in general and to the new States in particular which can- 
 not fail to receive the most profound consideration of Congress." ^ 
 Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treastiry, approved the restric- 
 tion of sales of public lands to actual settlers, as a possible solution 
 of the paper surplus problem, in his report to Congress, December 6, 
 1836.' The recommendation of Jackson was given legislative form 
 by the bill proposed in the Senate by Morris, of Ohio, December 14, 
 
 ' Quincy (Illinois) Argus, in Missouri Argiis, August 26, 1836; Northwestern Gazette 
 and Galena Advertiser, August 27, September 3, and October 29, 1836. "The Treasury 
 circular did much to .the injury of the hitherto popular party in this section [Illinois], 
 and I think throughout the West generally. The settlers believe it operates in favor of 
 the speculator; and believe me any measure that shall appear to favor the speculator 
 or the rich exclusively, the settlers go against. The settlers say and justly that they 
 cannot command the specie so readily as the moneyed speculator." (S. S. Milton to 
 N. J. Tilden, January 3, 1837; Van Buren MSS.) 
 
 * Richardson, Messages and Papers, m, 250. 
 
 ' Cong Debates, 24th Cong., 2d Sess., Appendix, 76. 
 
PUBLIC LANDS, SURPLUS AND PANIC 53 
 
 1836, to prohibit the sale of public lands except to actual settlers; • 
 it was indorsed by the Committee on Public Lands in its report on 
 Morris's bill, January 2, 1837," and was supported by the Washing- 
 ton G/o6e as a measure expected by the country from the Demo- 
 cratic majority in the Senate and House of Representatives.' 
 
 The Secretary of the Treasury had also suggested the reduction 
 of the tariff as a solution of the paper surplus problem, and the 
 Committee on Ways and Means in the House of Representatives 
 had given a stronger emphasis to this method than to the restric- 
 tion of the sales of land to actual settlers.* On the other hand, 
 Senator Wright, of New York when introducing the bill for the re- 
 duction of the revenue from the Committee on Finance, declared, 
 
 that if Congress, by any legislative action, at its present session, 
 could reduce the receipts into the Treasury to the wants of the 
 Government, the most important measures to reach that object 
 must relate to the lands, and go to reduce the receipts from that 
 source." ^ This conclusion, Wright continued, was based on the 
 land receipts for the past two years, which had amovmted to a svun 
 exceeding the usual estimate of the wants of the Treasury for these 
 two years. " If, then, every dollar of the revenue from customs 
 were instantly repealed, and the receipts from the lands were to 
 continue at the rates of the last year, there would still be a surplus 
 in the Treasury, or the expenses of the Government must be swollen 
 beyond the amount which is considered economical and desirable. 
 
 ' Senate Bills and Resolutions, 24th Cong., 2d Sess., no. 20. The restriction of sale 
 to actual settlers was to be efEected by withholding title until the land (one section 
 being the limit of purchase) had been cultivated and resided on for four years. The bill 
 also provided for the graduation of the price of land from one dollar and twenty-five 
 cents to seventy-five cents an acre according to the number of years it had been on sale. 
 
 2 liid.., Morris's bill was amended by the Committee on Public Lands by the inser- 
 tion of a preemption arrangement in place of graduation, by which any applicant who 
 hadactuallyoccupied, before December 1, 1836, land never before offered for sale at 
 public auction, could buy not more than one hundred and sixty acres at the minimum 
 price, including his improvements. The Committee on Public Lands also changed 
 somewhat the conditions of sale to actual settlers. Two sections were now made the 
 limit of purchase. No patent was to be issued unless the applicant erected a house and 
 cleared one eighth of the land within five years, or actually resided on the land for 
 three of the five years. 
 
 ' January 7, 1837. • Niles's Register, li, 326. 
 
 ' Cong. Debates, 24th -Cong., 2d Sess., 569. 
 
54 THE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 It was, therefore, impossible to apply an efficient and adequate 
 remedy for the existing evil of a redundant revenue by any reduc- 
 tions of the revenue from customs. The receipts from the lands 
 was the seat of the evil and to that quarter the great and current 
 remedies must be directed." ' 
 
 Meanwhile the Whigs insisted on spending the surplus by dis- 
 tributing the proceeds from the sale of the public lands,' or by 
 extending the deposit bill.' Ewing, of Ohio, brought forward a 
 resolution to annul the specie circular and also to prohibit the 
 Secretary of the Treasury from making any discrimination iniimds 
 received from different individuals or from different branches of 
 public revenue.^ This was a direct blow at Jackson. The resolution 
 was passed to a third reading, so that Rives, a Democratic Senator 
 from Virginia, might offer a substitute in the form of an amend- 
 ment which designated funds receivable for public revenues.' 
 
 Jackson was naturally hostile to the resolution rescinding the 
 specie circular, as he regarded it as a censure on his issue of the 
 circular. He also objected to Rives's substitute bill, considering it 
 an oblique censure " rather than otherwise leading to the impression 
 that the Treasury order was not within the Constitutional duties 
 of the Executive." * Jackson asked his friends to reject Ewing's 
 resolution, and put in a separate bill what was contained in the 
 amendment of Rives. If this were not done he would veto.^ The 
 
 ' Cong. Debates, 24th Cong., 2d Sess., S70- 
 
 ' Clay introduced a bill for this purpose, December 19, 1836. {Senale Journal, 24th 
 Cong., 2d Sess., 46.) 
 
 ' Calhoun introduced a bill to extend the provisions of the deposit act of June 23, 
 1836, to the money that might be in the Treasury, January i, 1838. {Senate Journal, 
 24th Cong., 2d Sess., 53.) 
 
 ♦ Senate Journal, 24th Cong., 2d Sess., 31. 
 
 " Cong. Debates, 24th Cong., 2d Sess., 123. 
 
 ' Jackson to Blair, to be communicated to Rives and Grundy, January, 1837. 
 (Jackson MSS.) 
 
 ' " No benefit can come to the public by the amendment proposed. Why call on the 
 President to sanction a measure which is, as he views it, an indirect censure upon him? 
 Why not meet that part which alone are {sic) useful — the limit of the size of the notes 
 — by a law regulating the Deposit Banks, and not by an amendment to the Resolu- 
 tion of censure? I ask, then, of my friends to reject Ewing's Resolution, and do by law 
 what is expected by the Amendment, which you see I cannot approve if sent to me." 
 {Ibid.) 
 
PUBLIC LANDS, SURPLUS AND PANIC 55 
 
 procedure of the Senate shows that this course was adopted. The 
 resolution as amended was referred, January ii, 1837, to the Com- 
 mittee on Public Lands/ and on January 21, upon the recommen- 
 dation * of that Committee, was referred to the Committee on 
 Finance,' where it died. Meanwhile, on January 18, the Com- 
 mittee on Public Lands reported a bill providing for the reception 
 by the Government of the notes of no bank issmng paper imder 
 five dollars, and, after December 30, 1839, under ten dollars.^ This 
 bill applied to receipts from the public lands as well as from other 
 sources. Even in this form Jackson objected to the bill, and took 
 the stand that he would not accept any measure which would re- 
 flect on his action of the previous summer, unless he received first in 
 some form or other a congressional sanction for his action. He 
 regarded the passage of the land bill restricting the sale of land to 
 actual settlers as such a sanction, because this bill would stop land 
 speculation which the receiving of bank notes had encouraged.^ 
 Jackson in fact wrote to Blair, asking him to communicate with 
 Gnmdy and Rives, with the aim of influencing the latter to have his 
 substitute for Ewing's resolution laid aside and the land bill made 
 the forerunner of any measure to rescind the specie circular.* 
 Grundy, at Blair's request, told Rives that he could not have the 
 support of Jackson or of Jackson's personal friends, unless the land 
 biU was passed first." Rives knew he must have Jackson's approval 
 for the bill to become law, and xmtil February 10 he needed the 
 support of the Jackson men to pass his bill in the Senate.* An 
 arrangement between Jackson and Rives seems to have been made, 
 
 ' Cong. Debates, 24th Cong., 2d Sess., 376. • Ibid., S33- ' Ibid., 534. 
 
 ' Senate Journal, 24th Cong., 2d Sess., 133. 
 
 ' Blair to Jackson, April 14, 1839. (Jackson MSS.) 
 
 • This may be seen from an examination of the procedure and the votes. The fifteen 
 Whigs were opposed to Rives until February 10, as seen by their voting to put his bill 
 on the table, January 30, when it was all ready for final passage, in opposition to the 
 whole of Rives's personal following (Senate Journal, 24th Cong., 2d Sess., 177) ; by the 
 testimony of the New York Express, February i, 1837, that Rives was trying to enlist 
 enough of the Administration to pass his bill; and by the Whigs swinging over to Rives, 
 when he accepted Clay's amendment, February 10 (Cong. Debates, 24th Cong., ad 
 Sess., 778). If we subtract from the 41 yeas of the final vote the 15 yeas of the Whigs, 
 we have left 26 in favor and 20 against. A study of procedure shows that Dana, Ful- 
 ton, Grundy, Page, and Strange were loyal supporters of Jackson on all occasions. 
 Thus it is clear that the Jackson men held the balance of power up to February 10. 
 
56 TEE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 for the land bill passed February 9,1 a day before the passage of 
 Rives's bill,^ and the followers of Jackson and Rives voted for both 
 bills. The Whigs in a body swung over in favor of Rives's bill be- 
 cause of Clay's amendment, added the last day, rescinding the 
 specie circular.' In the House of Representatives, Rives did not 
 carry out his agreement with Jackson. Rives's bill was passed 
 before the land bill was considered on March i,^ and it seems as if 
 Rives might have prevented the defeat of the land bill, since sixteen 
 Democrats who voted for Rives's bill voted against the land bill, 
 and eight others were absent when the land bill was voted on.* At 
 all events, Jackson regarded Rives as responsible for the loss of the 
 land bill, and in return pocket-vetoed Rives's bill when it came to 
 him for his signature.® 
 
 The land bill, as recommended by the Committee on Public 
 Lands, January 2, 1837, was not satisfactory to the pioneer West. 
 Sevier, Senator from Arkansas, declared that the West wanted the 
 control of the land within their limits, and with anything short of 
 this they would never rest content.^ Until then the changes in 
 public land administration which they especially wanted were the 
 restriction of the sales of land to actual settlers, the right of the 
 States to tax the land as soon as it was sold by the Government, 
 permanent preemption, and graduation.* The bill before the Sen- 
 ate included only the first and restrospective preemption. Morris, 
 of Ohio, endeavored to add a graduation amendment, but it was 
 defeated on January 20 by the close vote of 19 to 18.'' The com- 
 
 ' Cong. Globe, 24th Cong., 2d Sess., 167. ' Senate Journal, 24th Cong., 2d Sess., 233. 
 
 ' Cong. Debates, 24th Cong., 2d Sess., 778. The Jackson men would hardly have 
 accepted such an amendment if Jackson had not made an anangement with Rives. 
 
 * Ibid., 2090. 
 
 ' Ibid., 2091-92. Walker's bill was tabled by a vote of 107 to 91. A change of nine 
 votes would have altered the result. 
 
 " Blair to Jackson, April 14, 1839. (Jackson MSS.) 
 
 ' Cong. Debates, 24th Cong., 2d Sess., 732. 
 
 ' Ibid., 679, 732; Arkansas Weekly Gazette, February 14, 1837; New York Daily 
 Express, January 20, 1837; New York Evening Post for the country, February 3, 1837. 
 
 ' Cong. Debates, 24th Cong., ad Sess., 529. An analysis of the vote shows: — 
 
 Yet No 
 
 Eastern Whig3 i 7 
 
 Western " 4 3 
 
 Eastern Democrats 1 g 
 Western " la 
 
 18 19 
 
PUBLIC LANDS, SURPLUS AND PANIC 57 
 
 bination of Whigs and Eastern Democrats in the Senate proved too 
 strong for the pioneer West, though aided by Clayton, of Delaware, 
 and Rives, of Virginia. Sevier was much disappointed, and accused 
 Van Buren, Jackson's successful nominee, of not furthering Jack- 
 son's policy as he had promised, because he had not urged his fol- 
 lowers in the old States, over whom he had influence, to vote for 
 this graduation amendment.* "I shall be deluded no longer," he 
 declared, "the South and Southwest will no longer be trifled with. 
 The graduation bill must be given them. Else I will vote against 
 the whole bill, and unless this bill is passed I will go with the Sena- >- 
 tor from South Carolina and vote for complete distribution as it has 
 been distributed, and knock off every protecting duty." ^ Tipton, 
 of Indiana, tried to add a graduation amendment a few days later, 
 but it failed by the same vote as earlier.' Even Benton was unable 
 to add a provision whereby actual settlers could buy land, which 
 had been offered for five years at a dollar and a quarter an acre, for 
 one dollar an acre.* This amendment was more conservative than 
 his bill which actually passed the Senate in 1830, but the South was 
 now more complacent on the tariff question. 
 
 The land bill progressed but slowly toward passage in the Senate, 
 fought over as it was by the Whigs who wanted to distribute the 
 proceeds from the sales of public lands, and by the representatives 
 of the Western settlers who tried in vain to add the graduation 
 principle.' Its Democratic supporters claimed that the bill would 
 stop speculation in the public lands and reduce the income of the 
 Government to the proper limits,' while its Whig opponents as- 
 
 ' Ibid., 732; New York Express, February 3, 1837; Northwestern Gazette and Galena 
 Advertiser, February 25, 1837. A comparison of the votes on graduation, January 20, 
 1837, and April 13, 1838 {Cong. Globe, 25th Cong., 2d Sess., 305), shows that Hubbaid, 
 of New Hampshire, Niles, of Connecticut, Strange, of North Carolina, and Wright, of 
 New York, all Democrats, voted in favor in 1838 and against in 1837. Of course one or 
 more may have been influenced by personal interests in 1837, and Van Buren may not 
 yet have been in a position to exact allegiance from Eastern Democrats on Western 
 measures. 
 
 ' Cong. Denies, 24th Cong., 2d Sess., 732. 
 
 ' January 24. (Ibid., 756.) * January 25. {Ibid., 557.) 
 
 ' Other attempts were made by Western Senators to add the graduation prindple, 
 but Eastern sentiment was too strongly opposed: Moore's amendment was lost, Febru- 
 ary 2, 1837 {Ibid., 671,677); White's amendment was lost, Februarys {ibid., 678, 696); 
 and Moore's was again lost, February 7 {ibid., 728). ' Ibid., 419 and/. 
 
58 THE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 sertedthat it would encourage speculation in the future and increase 
 the public land sales.' Calhoxin declared that the effect of the land 
 bill would be to "secure the most enormous speculation which has 
 ever been witnessed on this continent," ^ for the government 
 money, placed in the pet banks, had been loaned to pet speculators, 
 who now relied on the sales of the lands, which they had purchased, 
 for the means of paying their debts. The Government must not 
 sell, for it would interfere with their sales. Thus the land bill 
 was "regulated to consummate these plans of speculation," since 
 " without this measure or something equivalent to it they must end 
 in loss." ' "My opinion in regard to the public lands," continued 
 Calhoim, "has imdergone a great change dviring the course of this 
 debate. I thought there was a majority in this Senate who would 
 resolutely object to all rash changes in our land system. I hoped 
 most confidently that New England at least would have stood fast. 
 I have been disappointed. I hoped that the public lands would not 
 be drawn into our political contests. But in this too I have been 
 entirely disappointed. I see that the era has arrived when our large 
 capitalists are in a fair way to seize upon the whole body of the 
 public lands. This has compelled a great change to take place in 
 my mind. I greatly fear that we have reached the time when the 
 public domain is lost to the Government for all useful purposes. 
 We may, indeed, receive some amount of revenue from it, but it 
 will be accompanied with such agitations, and so much trouble and 
 political corruption, that the game wiU not compensate for the evil 
 incurred. I have made up my mind if a fair compensation can be 
 made to cede the whole to the new States on some fixed and well- 
 considered condition." * 
 
 The following day, February 7, Calhoun offered an amendment to 
 the land bill in the form of a substitute' for that bill. It provided 
 that all the public lands should be ceded to the Western States in 
 which they lay on condition that they should pass irrevocable acts 
 to pay the United States annually thirty-three and one-third per 
 cent of the gross amount of their sales ; that they should retain the ex- 
 
 * Cong. Debates, 24th Cong., 2d Sess., 512-13, 645-46. * Ibid., 702. 
 
 ' Ibid., 703; see also Charleston Mercury, February 24, 1837; United States Tele- 
 graph, February 2 and 8, 1837. * Ibid., 705. » Ibid., 729. 
 
PUBLIC LANDS, SURPLUS AND PANIC 59 
 
 isting sale and survey systems ; that, after January i , 1 842 , the States 
 might, if they wished, initiate a graduated system of prices accord- 
 ing to a stated scale; that the States should pay the expense of the 
 management of the public domain and the extinguishing of Indian 
 titles; that the portion retained by the States should include the 
 five per cent fund, or any part not already advanced to any State; 
 and that any State could tax lands sold as soon as the President 
 had been notified that that State had passed an act in compliance 
 with the above conditions. This plan of Calhoun was not an orig- 
 inal idea, though it did contain new features. On May 20, 1826, 
 Tazewell, of Virginia, had introduced a resolution in the Senate 
 proposing the cession of the pubhc lands to the States, though on 
 rather vague terms; ^ January 9, 1827,^ and again, January 28, 
 1828,' Hendricks, of Indiana, had moved, as an amendment to 
 Benton's graduation bill, a cession to the States on condition that 
 the States should not sell for less price than in the Territories. 
 Van Buren, in April, 1828, favored a cession to the States on reason- 
 able terms,^ and McLane advocated much the same plan in his 
 report to Congress, in December, 1831.^ Calhoim himself had fav- 
 ored the giving of the lands to the States on equitable terms in 1830, 
 if we may regard Hayne, of South Carolina, as representing Cal- 
 houn. * Memorials from Western States at different times had asked 
 similar action by Congress.^ Calhoun's cession bill of 1837 modi- 
 fied outright cession by making the States return a proportion of 
 the receipts from pubUc land sales to the general Government, and 
 requiring them to use the federal system of survey. 
 
 Calhoun rested the necessity for his action, in part, on the char- 
 acter of the land biU already before the Senate and the circum- 
 stances which were attending its passage through that body. From 
 all he had seen and heard, he was satisfied that the bill did not have 
 the hearty approbation of any of its supporters, whether from the 
 old or the new States. "Many, who had -uniformly opposed all 
 
 ' Cong. Debates, 19th Cong., ist Sess., 782. 
 
 ' Senate Bills and Resolutions, igth Cong., 2d Sess., no. $. 
 
 ' Senate Journal, 20th Cong., ist Sess., 124. ' Van Buren MSS. 
 
 ^ Cong. Debates, 22d Cong., ist Sess., Appendix, 29-30. 
 
 " Cong. Debates, 21st Cong., ist Sess., 35. 
 
 ' American State Papers, Public Lands, rv, 529, 871; v, 445-47; 622-23. , 
 
60 TEE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 measures of the kind," he declared, "and who represented portions 
 of the Union which had ever been vigilant on all questions con- 
 nected with the public lands, were found in the ranks of those who 
 supported the bill. The explanation is easy. It assumed the char- 
 acter of a party measure to be carried on party groimds, without 
 reference to the true interests of either the new or old States; and, 
 if we are to credit declarations made elsewhere,^ to fulfill obligations 
 contracted anterior to the late presidential election. From all this, . 
 I inferred we had reached the period when it was no longer possible 
 to prevent the public domain from becoming the subject of party 
 contention, and being used by party as an engine to control the 
 politics of the country." ^ In proposing cession to the States, Cal- 
 houn had other ostensible objects than taking the public lands out 
 of politics. He announced that he was trying thereby to counter- 
 act centralism by breaking down the vassalage of the new States 
 and also to stop the corruption which had resulted from the large 
 amoimt of patronage connected with the management of the public 
 domain.' Calhoun's point of view was not determined by funda- 
 mental interest in Western settlement. He doubtless hoped his 
 cession plan would defeat the land bill in the Senate, or House of 
 Representatives, and so afford a better chance for the success of his 
 deposit bill. He also probably wanted to protect the South as a 
 section by using Western gratitude for a lower tariff at the time of 
 readjustment in 1842. By defeating the Democratic pro-Westerit 
 land measure and by permanently disposing of the public lands, he 
 would be benefited himseff, and at the same time would be taking 
 capital out of the hands of other political aspirants. The Charles- 
 ton Mercury declared later that Calhoim's cession project "killed 
 the land bill and broke the arm of the New York policy which can- 
 not be maintained without keeping the Western States in govern- 
 ment leading strings." * Thus in reality Calhoun was using public 
 lands for a political purpose just as much as those from whom he 
 declared he was taking this political football. Instead of appealing 
 
 1 Calhoun may have been referring to Sevier's declaration, or those found in the 
 Whig newspapers during this session of Congress. New York Daily Express, February 
 I, 3. 1837; Boston Courier, February 7, 1837. 
 
 » Ccmg. Debates, 24th Cong., 2d Sess., 746. • Ibid., 735-36. * March s, 1837. 
 
PUBLIC LANDS, SURPLUS AND PANIC 6l 
 
 to the North Atlantic States, or to the old West, as did Clay by his 
 distribution bill, oi to the West, as Rives and Van Buren were 
 doing by piecemeal public land legislation, Calhoun was appealing 
 to the permanent gratitude of the West by giving them the control 
 of their public! lands, and a bonus consisting of the difference be- 
 tween the tlurty-three and one-third per cent to be paid to the 
 general Gpvernment plus the cost of administration and whatever 
 was obtained from the sales of the public lands. 
 
 Dissatisfied with the land bill, the pioneer West was inclined to 
 welcome Calhoun's cession plan. Sevier announced that "it was 
 the only measure which would give full and final satisfaction to the 
 West. . . . Come from what quarter it might, he, for one, stood 
 ready to advocate it." ' King, of Georgia, also preferred Calhoun's 
 substitute, believing "it would be a himdred thousand times better 
 for the people of the United States"; * and Walker, of Mississippi, 
 stated that whether it came from friend or foe it would have his 
 ^ most decided support." Other Westerners were willing to go for it 
 as a separate bill, but they would not consent to risk the land bill, 
 now far advanced in the Senate, by accepting the amendment pro- 
 posed by Calhoun.^ Benton strongly opposed the cession amend- 
 ment, declaring that within less than three years the new census 
 would be taken, and that " after that time the State of Arkansas 
 would enjoy three or four times her present weight in the councils 
 of the nation. By that time we should probably have three new 
 States : two on the Mississippi and one on the Gulf of Mexico ; while 
 the representation of the new States already in the Union would be 
 greatly enlarged. If the Senator from Arkansas would but restrain 
 his impatience imtil that period should arrive, the West would 
 settle this question of the public lands just as it pleased. They 
 would settle this matter as they would settle the presidency; and 
 the older States must look to them for both. He was not going to 
 surrender advantages like these for thirty years to come, for the 
 sake of the proposition now advanced. He! he who had introduced 
 this measure; he who had originated it; he who had fought it up, 
 was not going to suffer himself to be forestalled by any thirty years' 
 
 > Cong. Debates, 24th Cong., 2d Sess., 733. ' Ibid., 731. 
 
 ' Ibid. ♦ Ibid., 731, 734. 
 
62 TEE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 bargain. In three years more, they could write their own terms, and 
 lay them on the table of the Senate. They would be bid for, and bid 
 deeply for, by every candidate for the presidency." ' Sevier re- 
 joined that "it might be very true that the Presidential candidates 
 would bid deep for the favor of the West, but that was no reason 
 why the West should refuse a good offer when it was made. . . . 
 Here was a proposition to cede them the lands and he should vote 
 for it." » 
 
 Calhoun's amendment was defeated, February 7, by a vote of 28 
 to 7, only s Westerners voting with Calhoun, of South Carolina, 
 and King, of Georgia, in favor, as against 11 Western Democrats, 
 10 Eastern Democrats, and 7 Whigs opposed.' Immediately after- 
 wards the land bill was ordered to its third reading by a vote of 25 
 to 15.^ Of the 25, 9 were Eastern Democrats and the rest were 
 Westerners, 13 Democrats and 3 Whigs. Two Democrats, Sevier, 
 of Arkansas, and King, of Georgia, and 2 Western Whigs, Ewing, 
 of Ohio, and White, of Tennessee, acted with 11 Eastern Whigs 
 in opposition. 
 
 Two days later, Calhoim introduced his cession plan as a separate 
 bill, and asked its reference to a Committee on Public Lands or to a 
 select committee.^ Now that the land bill was not endangered by 
 Calhoun's proposal, more Western Senators came out in favor of it. 
 Even Benton supported it, declaring that "he was for both the 
 principles contained in this bill; and as to the details, when he was 
 cordial about a principle he never should balk at them; he would 
 give and take." * Clay, of Kentucky, was firmly opposed to Cal- 
 houn's project, and implored his brother Senators on all sides of the 
 house, "by every consideration of love to their country, and regard 
 to their own reputation, not to allow a matter of this weight and 
 moment to be made an object of party politics"; ' he conjured 
 them "to abstain from appeals by the new States to this or that 
 party," ^ and he asked them "if the impression had not been cre- 
 ated that the party now dominant in the country intended to 
 appeal to the new States, and, by conciliating their favor, to per- 
 petuate itself in power." ^ He then gave Calhoun to understand 
 
 1 Cong. Debates, 24th Cong. 2d Sess., 733. ' Ibid., 734. • Ibid., 736. 
 
 * Ibid., 736-37- ° Ibid., 739-40- ' IM-, 79i- ' Ibid., 742. 
 
PUBLIC LANDS, SURPLUS AND PANIC 63 
 
 that in offering a bigger boon to the Western States thantheDemo- 
 cratic party offered by the land bill, he was exposing himself to the 
 same suspicion of appealing to the West for selfish purposes. "Was 
 it not inevitable," he continued, "from the nature of the object in 
 question, that if one party made it an instrument to retain political 
 power, another party would be induced to do the same thing? And 
 the restdt must be an appeal, by both parties, to the new States, by 
 the sacrifice of that great interest which ought sacredly to be pre- 
 served for the benefit of the whole." ' Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, 
 termed Calhoun's cession bill "the most splendid bribe that has 
 ever yet been offered for the presidency"; ^ and NUes, of Connecti- 
 cut, called it " a grand new land scheme thrown into the Senate like 
 the golden apple of discord." ' 
 
 The Whig newspapers denounced the Democratic party and Cal- 
 hoxm for appealing to the West and stripping the old States of their 
 rightful property. "The Public Domain is up for bargaining and 
 vote buying," * announced the Boston Courier. The New York 
 Express stated that "Rives and Benton are going to use the Public 
 Lands as a stock in trade to traffic for the votes of the West and 
 Southwest when they come into competition as candidates for the 
 Presidency after Van Buren's days are over." ^ The Connecticut 
 Courant referred to Calhoun's cession bill as an "electioneering 
 bargain and sale"; ° and the New York Express declared that it 
 was " one of the greatest moves ever made in Congress." ^ The 
 Charleston Mercury admitted that "as a masterly political move- 
 ment this project of Calhoun's is imequaled by anything which our 
 political history can furnish." ^ 
 
 Calhoun's cession bill was tabled, February 11, by a vote of 26 
 to 20.' An analysis of the vote shows that all the twenty came 
 from the South and West, and the twenty-six against consisted of 
 the solid North Atlantic States, Virginia, North Carolina, and one 
 
 • Cong. Debates, 24th Cong., 2d Sess., 742. 
 
 ^ Benton, Thirty Years' View, 1, 708; Cong. Debates, 24th Cong., 2d Sess., 731. 
 
 • Cong. Debates, 24th Cong., 2d Sess., 735. * February 7, 1837. 
 
 ' January 26, 1837; see also February 3, 1837, and Boston Courier, February 7, 
 1837, for similar claims. The whole career of Benton is a repudiation of the charge. 
 
 • February 18, 1837. ' February 14, 1837. " February 14, 1837, 
 9 Cong. Debates, 24th Cong., 2d Sess., 794. 
 
64 TEE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 each from Ohio and Kentucky. As in 1830 and 1832, the West was 
 willing to be bid for by Calhoun and the South. The motives of 
 those opposed were probably varied. They may have been actu- 
 ated in part by loyalty to section, and in part by loyalty to their 
 political chiefs, Clay and Van Buren, who did not intend to lose 
 such a valuable asset in winning the West to their own standards. 
 The Charleston Mercury maintained that the Van Buren Senators 
 opposed Calhoun's proposition because they feared it woiild inter- 
 fere with their effort to bind the rapidly increasing Western interest 
 to the New York interest. This they were attempting to do "first 
 by extending through the Western States the New York system of 
 party discipline, second by wielding exclusively the money power 
 in the West by the Government Deposit Banks, and third by the 
 control of the public lands." ' 
 
 Meanwhile, on February 9, the land bill ^ passed the Senate by a 
 vote of 27 to 23.' The complexion of the vote was similar to that 
 on the third reading. Of the twenty-seven in favor, eleven were 
 Eastern Democrats and the rest were Westerners, including three 
 Whigs, while of the twenty-three opposed, eighteen were Whigs 
 and five were Democrats. The land bill was tabled in the House of 
 Representatives, on March i, by a vote of 107 to 91 .* This was due 
 to the bitter opposition of the Whigs, to Eastern sectionalism, to 
 the defection of Rives,' and to the influence of Calhouji's cession 
 bill.' 
 
 Thus, Congress had failed to carry any measure dealing with 
 
 • March 4, 1837. 
 
 • The land bill in its final form restricted sales to actual settlers by obliging the 
 buyer to swear that the land was for his own use, and by withholding title till the buyer 
 could show that he had within five years built a house and cleared one tenth of the 
 land, or that he had resided on it one year of the five years; it also granted preemption 
 to those who had actually occupied a tract of land before December i, 1836, and had 
 cultivated any part of it during 1836. Niles's Register, vol. li, 369-70. 
 
 ' Cong. Globe, 24th Cong., 2d Sess., 167; Washington Globe, March 8, 1837. 
 
 « Cong. Globe, 24th Cong., 2d Sess., 2091-92. An analysis of the vote shows: — 
 yes — Democrats Whigs ? No — Democrats Whigs ? 
 
 East 18 SO 4 SI 3 7 
 
 West 6 (Old West) so 21 7 a 
 
 ' See p. 56 of this chapter. 
 
 • Charleston Mercury, February 21, and March 4, 1837. 
 
PUBLIC LANDS, SURPLUS AND PANIC 65 
 
 the public land source of the paper surplus. Jackson's specie circu- 
 lar, however, served to break the bubble of speculative over-confi- 
 dence, and panic overtook the country shortly after Van Buren's 
 inauguration. Solicitations at once came from all quarters for an 
 executive repeal of the specie circular.' Some of Van Buren's party 
 followers prophesied injurious political effects if action were not 
 taken,^ while others counseled allowing the circular to stand.' 
 March 24, Van Buren drew up a draft of queries to the Cabinet on 
 the propriety of withdrawing or modif5ang the specie circular, but 
 as he expected cabinet division he decided to take the responsibility 
 himself and allow the circtdar to stand.* With the general bank 
 suspension in May, 1837, the specie circular was inoperative because 
 the paper of the suspended banks could not be used to buy public 
 lands. In his message to Congress at the special session, in Sep- 
 tember, 1837, Van Buren stated that "the effects of that order 
 [specie circular] had been so salutary, and its forecast in regard to 
 the increasing insecurity of bank paper had become so apparent, 
 that, even before the catastrophe, he had resolved not to interfere 
 with its operation. Congress is now to decide whether the revenue 
 is to continue to be so collected or not." " 
 
 ' Letters of the following to Van Buren: R. I. Ward, March 22, 1837; J. F. H. Clai- 
 borne, April 10, 1837; J. McCIure, April 26, 1837; A. Lane, April 26, 1837; J. S. 
 D'Arcy, April, 1837. (Van Buren MSS.) 
 
 2 Letters of the following to Van Buren: W. C. Rives, April 7, 1837; H. Tolland, 
 April 3, 1837; T. Cooper, April 14, 1837; R. Patterson, April 29, 1837. (Van Buren 
 MSS.) 
 
 • Letters of the following to Van Buren: Jackson, March 21, 22, and 30, 1837; 
 Wright, March 21, 1837; Woodbury, March 19, 1837; Cambreleng, April 8, 1837. (Van 
 Buren MSS.) 
 
 « Van Buren MSS. 
 
 " Richardson, Messages and Papers, m, 339. Nothing, however, was done until 
 1838, when a joint resolution was passed, prohibiting the Secretary of the Treasury 
 from making or continuing in force "any general order which shall create any differ- 
 ence between the different branches of revenue as to the medium of payment in which 
 debts or dues to the United States shall be paid" (Cong. Globe., 2Sth Cong., 2d Sess., 
 416). It passed the Senate May 29, 1838, by a vote of 34 to 9 {ibid.), and the House of 
 Representatives the next day by a vote of 154 to 29 {House Journal, 25th Cong., 2d 
 Sess., 1006-07). The Whigs claimed that the passage of this resolution constituted a 
 repeal of the specie circular and was a Whig victory {National Intelligencer, May 31, 
 1838; New York Journal of Commerce, June 2, 1838; Maysville Eagle, June 6, 1838). 
 On the other hand, a large portion of the Democratic party voted for it, and the ad- 
 
66 TEE INFLUENCE OF TEE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 Owing to the panic, the problem which faced the new Adminis- 
 tration was not a government surplus, but a deficit. Although the 
 public lands now ceased to be an important integral part of the 
 financial situation, they continued to exercise a strong influence, 
 because Van Buren soon found that he could not pass his independ- 
 ent treasury measure without giving in to the West on public lands. 
 
 Up to December, 1837, Van Buren had not adopted a clearly 
 defined public land policy. In his open letters of August, 1835, and 
 1836,^ he had declared himseK to be in favor of so disposing of the 
 public lands as to effect their early settlement and cultivation by 
 small freeholders, but on the whole he had been rather guarded 
 in statements as to ways and means. Indeed, he had promised 
 nothing definite except opposition to the distribution of the pro- 
 ceeds of the public lands. Van Buren's enemies in the West recog- 
 nized that he had not taken a definite stand, and used this fact to 
 antagonize the Western people against him.^ Yet his friends in the 
 West were ready to believe that as the nominee of Jackson he would 
 follow in Jackson's footsteps.' His enemies in the East, also, were 
 inclined to believe that he would favor the West. Adams wrote to 
 Alexander H. Everett, December i, 1835: "Van Buren is pledged 
 to support the principles of Jackson's administration . . . pledged I 
 greatly fear to sacrifice the Public Lands to the grasping temper of 
 the new Western States";^ and the Connecticut CoMro«i declared 
 that he had promised to further Western interests on the land 
 question, if the West would support him as a candidate.^ The new 
 
 ministration newspapers viewed it rather as an extension of the principle of the circu- 
 lar to customs receipts, compelling the Executive to make the pressure more general in 
 case the public revenue ever again were injured (Washington Globe, May 31, 1838; 
 New York Evening Post, June 2, 1838; Albany Argtts, June Si 1838; and Missouri 
 Argus, June 13, 1838). 
 
 ' Niles's Register, li, 26-27. 
 
 ' Letters of the following to Van Buren: R. M. Gaines, October 20, 1834; S. Given, 
 August 15, 183s; W. G. Fulton, February 19, 1836 (Van Buren MSS.); Northwestern 
 Gazette and Galena Advertiser, July 2, 1836. 
 
 ' Northwestern Gazette and Galena Advertiser, February 25, 1837; Cong. Debates, 
 24th Cong., 2d Sess., 732. 
 
 * Am. Hist. Rev., xi, 348. 
 
 ' February 11, 18, and March 4, 1837; see also New York Daily Express, February 
 3. 1837- 
 
PUBLIC LANDS, SURPLUS AND PANIC 67 
 
 West had not been at all satisfied with Van Buren's attitude during 
 the Congress following his election. It will be remembered that 
 Sevier, of Arkansas, had actually accused Van Buren of not adher- 
 ing to Jackson's policy, as he had promised, because he did not 
 influence his Eastern followers to vote for the graduation amend- 
 ments to the land bill. 
 
 Van Buren evidently recognized the expediency of acquainting 
 the West with his plan for separating the Government from all 
 banks, in the spring of 1837, as seen by his asking Benton to join 
 Rives, Buchanan, Wright, and Tallmadge in a conference on the 
 character of the future fiscal agency.* Van Buren's divorce plan, as 
 recommended to the special session of Congress in September, 
 1837, with Calhoun's specie amendment, was not acceptable to the 
 West as a whole. The Western Whigs immediately attacked it, 
 and several Western Democrats joined the opposition. Smith, of 
 Indiana, protested against the measure as being hostile to Western 
 interests. "Does not every Western man see," he declared, "that 
 its practical effect must be to drain all our specie from us through 
 the land offices and post-offices? . . . Would it not at once amoimt, 
 in effect, to a confiscation of at least two thirds of the property in 
 the country? Would it not increase, as two to one, the debts of the 
 People? And how, let me ask, do gentlemen suppose the debtors — 
 either merchants, banks, or people — can pay their debts if specie 
 should be required? Property must come to the hammer of the 
 auctioneer; and the sacrifice would create ruin." '^ Tipton, of Indi- 
 ana, declared that the divorce bill would have a tendency to cripple 
 the state banks. "A single breath," he asserted, "from Congress 
 and the President saying to the state banks, 'We will not receive 
 your paper in payment of duties or for public lands,' will strike 
 fifty per cent off the value of all the property of our constituents." ' 
 If it had not been for the assistance of the main body of the West- 
 ern Democrats, the Independent treasury bill would not have 
 passed the Senate, as it did October 4, 1837, by a vote of 26 to 20.* 
 
 * Van Buren to Rives, May 25, 1837. (Van Buren MSS.) June "4, 1837, Wright 
 wrote Van Buren that he would get into communication with "Benton, Rives, and 
 Buchanan'' on the subject of the Sub-Treasury. (Van Buren MSS.) 
 
 ' Cong. Globe, 2sth Cong., ist Sess., Appendix, 167. • Ibid., 62. * Ibid., 100. 
 
68 TEE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 Of the 26, 14 were Western Democrats, while 3 Western Democrats 
 and 2 Eastern Democrats joined 15 Whigs in opposition. In the 
 House of Representatives the Whigs were stronger, and with the 
 aid of several Democrats succeeded in tabling the bill with a vote 
 of 1 20 to 107.' As in the Senate, the West was divided on the meas- 
 ure, but in inverse proportion, for in the House its Western oppo- 
 nents were double the number of its Western supporters. Forty- 
 one Western Whigs and 5 Western Democrats voted against the 
 bill, while 20 Western Democrats favored it. Van Buren probably 
 studied the vote in the Senate and House, and learned that the 
 assistance of the West was essential to the passage of his independ- 
 ent treasury bill. The Democratic loss in the Western fall elections 
 was doubtless a cumulative influence in rousing In'm to action. The 
 result was that his recommendations on public lands in his message 
 to Congress, December 5, 1837, had a decided Western tinge. 
 
 The government deficit resulting from the panic may also have 
 influenced Van Buren to take this action. Benton had at once used 
 the deficit as an additional argument for graduating the price of 
 public lands, and he urged Van Buren to take immediate advan- 
 tage of this resource to get suppUes for the Gtovemment. "The 
 lands not yet in the market," Benton wrote Van Buren, "but ready 
 to be offered, will bring in large sums immediately; the old lands, 
 say one hundred miUion acres, at graduating prices will sell as fast 
 as we need them. , . . The sale of the old lands by a law of Con- 
 gress graduating the price is one of the first things I think for Con- 
 gress to do." 2 Benton's arguments may have had weight with Van 
 Buren in his decision to recommend graduation in December, 1837. 
 
 Another factor which probably induced Van Buren to declare 
 himself in favor of a liberal land policy was the pressure of the 
 Loco Foco labor element, which wanted freer access to the public 
 domain. The labor agitation of the twenties for the donation of 
 
 ' Cong. Globe, 2$th Cong., ist Sess., 141. 
 
 ' May 21, 1837. (Van Buren MSS.) As graduation was not passed by Congress in 
 1838, Van Buren again recommended it in his two successive annual messages (Rich- 
 ardson, Messages and Papers, iii, 496, 537), and the Secretary of the Treasury (Cong. 
 Globe, 26th Cong.,ist Sess., 18; Wasliington Globe, January 5, 1839), and the Financial 
 Committee of the Senate (Senate Documents, 25th Cong., 3d Sess., no. 11, 14; Wash- 
 ington Globe, January 5, 1839) indorsed it as a means of increasing the treasury income. 
 
PUBLIC LANDS, SURPLUS AND PANIC 69 
 
 the public lands to settlers had grown to such an extent in the thir- 
 ties that their demands were embodied in one of the resolutions of 
 the National Trades Union Convention of 1834: "Resolved, that 
 this Convention deprecate the system now practiced in the disposal 
 of the Public Lands, because of its violating the inherent rights of 
 the citizen, seeing that the whole of the unseated lands belong xmto 
 the people, and should not be disposed of to the prejudice of any 
 class of society, each and every citizen having a just claim to an 
 equitable portion thereof, a location upon which being the only just 
 title thereimto." ^ Again, in the Convention of 1836, came this 
 clear-cut declaration: "Resolved, that the public lands are the 
 public domain, and that the said domain should be appropriated 
 only to actual settlers, labor expended thereon being the title that 
 equal laws and equal rights will approve." ^ The workingmen in- 
 sisted upon the freedom of the public lands the more strenuously in 
 these years of rising prices, because they believed that the welfare 
 of their class as a whole would be benefited; they contended that if 
 the Western lands were open only to actual settlers, wages would 
 rise and strikes would be unnecessary, for the draining off of surplus 
 labor would increase the demand for labor in the East.^ George 
 H. Evans, one of the labor leaders, was continually urging this 
 view: "We have proposed, and do propose that the public lands 
 should no longer be sold, but that any man, unpossessed of land, 
 should be allowed to take possession of a certain portion of the unap- 
 propriated domain for the purpose of cultivation. ... If this pro- 
 posal were adopted it would prevent the surplus of laborers in any 
 mechanical branch, and, consequently, the necessity of turnouts." * 
 After workingmen had joined the Loco Foco party in September, 
 1836, the latter advocated the cause of labor in their resolutions 
 and speeches. They supported Jackson's specie circular and Van 
 Buren's refusal to rescind it as a protection of the lands of the peo- 
 ple from the monopoly of speculators,^ but they attacked an ad- 
 ministration of the public domain which still kept the poor work- 
 
 1 J. R. Conimons, Documentary History of American Industrial Society, vi, 207. 
 » Ibid., 280. ^ Ibid., 207-08. 
 
 * Ibid., V, 46-47. 
 « F. Brydsall, History of the Loco Foco Party, 136-37, 140, 151, 153- 
 
70 THE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 ingman from getting a freehold. As a Loco Foco leader declared in a 
 large public gathering, Jtme 24, 1837, "The practice of reserving 
 the public lands for the benefit of speculators and wild beasts, while 
 thousands of God's children have not where to lay their heads; and 
 the practice of stripping every poor man of his natural inalienable 
 right to a share of the bounties of our Common Father . . . are sub- 
 jects that should at this time be considered with serious attention, 
 and acted upon with deliberate caution, by our whole people." ' 
 The moderate Loco Focos merged with the Democratic party in 
 the fall of 1837,^ and it is reasonable to suppose that Van Buren 
 was influenced by their ideas in the preparation of his presidential 
 message on the subject of the public lands. 
 
 Van Biu-en declared in his message ^ that the object of the Gov- 
 ernment's land policy "ought to be the early settlement and cul- 
 tivation of the lands sold, and that it should discountenance, if 
 it cannot prevent, the accumulation of large tracts in the same 
 hands." ^ To gain these ends he recommended that the price of the 
 public lands should vary according to their relative value, and that 
 their sale should be in limited quantities and for actual improve- 
 ment. He doubted whether a reduction in price according to the 
 length of time the lands had been in the market would fiimish 
 a true criterion of value, and suggested instead that the safest 
 method would be to appraise lands which had been a certain length 
 of time on sale, to classify them into two or more rates below the "^ 
 existing minimum prices, and to make those prices permanent. In 
 addition he favored preemption for those already on the public 
 lands, but hoped that his plan for graduation of price would pre- 
 vent squatting in the future. In time the refuse of sales should be 
 transferred to the States for a reasonable equivalent, and the ma- 
 chinery of the Land Office withdrawn. John Quincy Adams viewed 1 
 these recommendations as a purchase of the West by the plunder 
 of the Western lands, and termed them the system of Jackson's 
 message of December, 1832, "with a new coat of varnish." ^ 
 
 Once having decided on public land legislation favorable to the 
 
 * F. Brydsall, History of the Loco Foco Party, 149-50. ' Ihid., 174. 
 
 ' Richardson, Messages and Papers, m, 384-89. * Ibid., 384-85. 
 
 ' Memoirs, ix, 441. 
 
PUBLIC LANDS, SURPLUS AND PANIC 71 
 
 West, Van Buren was able to follow it up vigorously owing to his 
 Democratic majority in the Senate. In 1838, graduation, ' based ' 
 upon the length of time in the market, and retrospective preemp- 
 tion ^ passed the upper house in spite of the opposition of Clay and 
 Calhoun. Five Eastern Democratic Senators, who had voted against 
 graduation in 1837, voted for it now, probably in return for the 
 assistance which the Democratic Westwas giving Van Buren on the 
 independent treasury bill. Graduation was too radical a Western 
 measure for the Eastern Representatives to favor with its larger 
 proportionate Eastern representation,^ but preemption had the 
 force of repeated precedent behind it, and was read the third time 
 by the decisive test vote of 132 to 70,^ passing later the same day by 
 a vote of 107 to 52.* The Democrats in a body voted for the bill, 
 with the exception of a few from the East, truer to section than to 
 party, and carried with them a large number of Western Whigs. 
 The New York Evening Post viewed the vote as "a perfect rout and 
 overthrow of the Clay party. It is an omen from which the Ken- 
 tucky gambler in politics can hardly fail to draw sad conclusions in 
 regard to his future success." ^ The Whigs regarded the whole pro- 
 ceeding as an attempt to add to the administration party in the 
 new States.^ The Connecticut Courant, May 19, 1838, announced 
 
 1 December 7, 1837, Walker, of Mississippi, introduced the graduation bill, graduat- 
 ing the price of public lands according to value (Senate Bills and Resolutions, 2Sth 
 Cong., 2d Sess., no. 4); December 27, 1837, it was reported from the Committee on 
 Public Lands with graduation based on time replacing graduation according to value 
 {ibid.). The bill passed the Senate, April 13, 1838, by a vote of 27 to 16 (Cong. 
 Globe, 2$tii Cong., 2d Sess., 305). The alliance of the Administration and the West 
 won against the Whigs, Calhoun, and Eastern sectionalism. 
 
 2 December 28, 1837, the Committee on Public Lands reported a preemption bill, 
 granting preemption to those then resident on the public lands (Committee Reports, 
 2Sth Cong., 2d Sess., L, no. 202). The bill passed the Senate, January 30, 1838, by a 
 vote of 30 to 18 (Cong. Globe, 2Sth Cong., 2d Sess., 149). The complexion of the vote 
 was the same as on graduation. See also Washington Globe, January 29, 1838; Mis- 
 souri Argtis, July 10, 1838. 
 
 ' The graduation bill from the Senate was reported to the House of Representa- 
 tives by the Committee on Public Lands (Cong. Globe, 25th Cong., 2d Sess., 311), but 
 no further action was taken on it. 
 
 * June 14, 1838. (Cong. Globe, 2Sth Cong., 2d Sess., 452.) 
 
 ^ New York Evening Post for the country, Jnrne 21, 1838. 
 
 ' Boston Mercantile Journal, February 3, 1838; Boston Courier, February i, and 
 April 19, 1838. 
 
72 THE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 that the public lands will be used two years hence to secure the 
 reelection of Van Buren, unless something strong is done in opposi- 
 tion. The Boston Courier declared that the interests of the whole 
 Union were being "sacrificed by those to whom they were com- 
 mitted as a sacred trust, for the purpose of corrupt party votes. 
 The preemption bill is not the only straw which shows the way the 
 wind blows. . . . The Public Lands sway the whole Southwest, 
 excepting scarcely as much as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, 
 with more power and energy than was in the strength of Nebuchad- 
 nezzar ; and every great political party which will help the Western 
 States to prey on the PubUc Lands, which they think they have a 
 perfect right to do, will be sure to obtain the whole of their help in 
 attaining and retaining an ascendency of power in the general 
 politics of the country." ^ The support which the Democratic 
 West was giving to the independent treasury bill may have been in 
 the writer's mind. The passage of this bill in the Senate, March 
 26, 1838, by a vote of 27 to 25,^ would have been impossible, had 
 it not been for the yeas of 15 Western Democrats. The vote against 
 consisted of 2 Western and 2 Eastern Democrats, 2 Western and 2 
 Eastern Conservatives, 3 Western and 13 Eastern Whigs, and Cal- 
 houn. The preponderance of Western Whigs and Conservatives still 
 prevented passage in the House of Representatives.' The Western 
 Democrats coidd muster only 19 in favor as compared with the 
 47 Whigs and Conservatives against. 
 
 In the face of the indorsement of Western public land measures 
 by the Administration, Calhoun's bid to the West was not heard. 
 He introduced his cession plan, February 5, 1838,^ and Walker, on 
 March i, reported it from the Committee on Public Lands without 
 amendment.^ Calhoun was not disappointed when no ftirther action 
 was taken upon it, because he wanted merely to bring the subject 
 before the people with a view to pressing its passage some time in 
 the future.* Clay contmued to fight against the passage of the 
 graduation bill ^ in 1839. He wrote Brooke, January 7, that he 
 
 > February 8, 1838. ' Cong. Globe, 2Sth Cong., 2d Sess., 264. 
 
 ' Ibid., 478. * Ibid., 160. ' Ibid., 204. 
 
 ' Charleston Mercury, March 3, 1840. 
 ' It was introduced by Clay, of Alabama, December s, 1838 {Senate Journal, 2Sth 
 
PUBLIC LANDS, SURPLUS AND PANIC 73 
 
 "was struggling over the land subject. Whether it will be practi- 
 cable much longer to save that great interest depends on the future ' 
 course of the old States. / cannot much longer defeat the combined 
 action of the Administration and the new States." ^ Clay tried to 
 defeat the graduation bill by delays, declaring that the present 
 Congress did not represent the true sentiment of the people on the 
 measure;^ he did succeed, by the aid of Eastern Democrats, in 
 recommitting the bill to the Committee on Public Lands with 
 instructions to restrict the right of buying lands at reduced prices 
 to actual settlers,' but he was decisively defeated in his attempt to 
 add a distribution amendment by the vote of the Democratic party ''' 
 as a whole.* In spite of Clay's untiring opposition, the graduation 
 bill passed the Senate, January 17, 1839, by a vote of 27 to 22,^ the 
 Administration and the West prevailing against the main body of 
 the Whigs and several Eastern Democrats. Clay's efforts, however, 
 met with success in the House of Representatives where the 
 Eastern sectional influence was stronger, and the graduation biU 
 was tabled, January 22, by a vote of loi to 98.* The foremost Whig 
 newspaper, the National Intelligencer, rejoiced at what it termed 
 a decisive defeat of graduation.' 
 
 Cong., 3d Sess., 25), and reported by Walker from the Committee on Public Lands, 
 December 10, 1838 {ibid., 34). 
 
 1 Colton, Clay, u, 436. 
 
 ' Cong. Globe, 25th Cong., 3d Sess., Appendix, 50. 
 
 ' Senate Journal, zsth Cong., 3d Sess., 94. 
 
 * Ibid., 114. 
 
 ' Cong. Globe, 25th Cong., 3d Sess., I30. An atialysis of the vote shows: — 
 
 Yes Whigs Dem, Conserv. No Whigs Dem. Consen. 
 
 North Atlantic 6 6 ta 8 3 i 
 
 South Atlantic 1 2 8341 
 
 Old West I I 3 2 
 
 New West 8 I 61 
 
 Southwest 10 a 8 
 
 • Ibid., 140. An analysis of the vote shows: — 
 
 Yes Dem. Whigs Consen. No Whigs Dem. Conserv. 
 
 North Atlantic so 5 45 
 
 South Atlantic 33 7 as 4 
 
 Old West 18 18 
 New West 
 Southwest 
 
 No 
 
 Whigs 
 
 Dem. 
 
 43 
 
 
 43 
 
 11 
 
 
 II 
 
 la 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 19 
 
 II 
 
 8 
 
 98 
 
 ' National Intelligencer, January 24, 1839. 
 
74 THE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 To recapitulate, the public lands, contributing as they did so 
 largely to the revenue of the Government d\iring the years of specu- 
 lative over-confidence, had been closely connected with the general 
 financial situation before the panic of 1837. Owing to the renewed 
 popularity of Clay's bill for distributing the proceeds from the 
 sales of pubHc lands during the period of government surplus, and 
 the complacency of the South on the tariff question after 1833, 
 the plans of the free land West had not progressed. However, the 
 government deficit of the years of depression and the desire of Van 
 Buren to establish the independent Treasury had resulted in an 
 alKance between the Administration and the pioneer West. A 
 temporary preemption act had passed, but neither the graduation 
 bill nor the divorce bill had been able to get through the House of 
 Representatives. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 PUBLIC LANDS AND THE ELECTION OF 184O 
 
 Throitghout the decade 1 830-1 840 the West had continued to 
 be the section which was growing most rapidly in population, and 
 therefore in political strength. Indeed, by 1840, the West held the 
 balance of power, as its aid was necessary to each party for con- 
 trol in Congress, or the election of its President. Clear proof of this 
 is furnished by an examination of the preelection policy of the 
 different elements, the Whigs, the Administration, and Calhoim's 
 group. 
 
 The maneuvering of the Whigs for the favor of the West may be 
 seen in their dealing with the needs of the bankrupt States. During 
 the period of over-confidence and extension of business, a ntmiber of 
 States had undertaken vast internal improvements, and had read- 
 ily borrowed the initial capital reqmred. As a result of the panic 
 of 1837 and ensuing financial depression, these States were obliged 
 to stop work on their internal improvement plans, and found them- 
 selves unable to pay the interest on their loans which were held 
 both at home and abroad. With the exception of Maryland and 
 Pennsylvania, the States involved were Western, — Ohio, Indiana, 
 Illinois, Michigan, Arkansas, and Louisiana, — and only one, Indi- 
 ana, was distinctly Whig in politics. Affairs were in this condition 
 when Baring Bros, issued a circular on the subject, October 18, 
 1839, which declared that if the whole scheme of internal improve- 
 ments were to be completed in the United States, a more compre- 
 hensive guaranty than that of any individual State would be re- 
 quired, and announced that a national pledge would vmdoubtedly 
 collect capital from all parts of Europe.' A number of Whig news- 
 papers immediately proceeded to agitate the subject of national 
 assumption of state debts. The National Intelligencer pubKshed a 
 communication which proposed that the proceeds from the sales of 
 
 1 Niks's Register, Lvn, 177. 
 
76 TEE INFLUENCE OF TEE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 the public lands be set apart for the redemption of the state debts.* 
 The leading Whig newspaper of New York, the Courier and En- 
 quirer, declared that the question of using the public domain to pay 
 state debts would be presented to the next Congress in a form 
 which would demand immediate action,* and a few days later took 
 the lead by proposing a definite plan and asking the comment of 
 other newspapers : "Let the Government of the United States create 
 three hundred million of stock bearing an interest of four per cent 
 per annum, and let this be apportioned among the States ... ac- 
 cording to the number of their Senators and Representatives in 
 Congress, and let the proceeds from the sales of Public Lands be set 
 aside and sacredly pledged as a sinking fmid for the redemption of 
 this stock." ' The New York Herald published this plan the next 
 day, with the announcement that the plan was "so far matured by 
 the leaders of the Whig party as to be officially promulgated in the 
 Courier and Enquirer" * It approved the project as the only effec- 
 tual system of relief. Other newspapers followed suit.^ As it was 
 doubtful whether direct assumption could be carried, its projectors 
 turned to the distribution of the proceeds of the public lands for pi 
 the payment of the state debts.' 
 
 Contemporaneous with the nomination of Harrison aind the deci- 
 sion not to issue a party platform, all the Whig newspapers became i 
 silent on the subject, and later the Whigs in Congress denied that 
 they had ever planned helping the bankrupt States.^ That one 
 prominent Whig outside the newspaper world had been actively 
 interested may be concluded from the following evidence concern- 
 ing Daniel Webster's visit to England. The Washington Glohe 
 asserted that Webster went to England in the summer of 1839 to 
 assure the English holders of state stocks that the United States 
 
 ' October 28, 1839. • November 9, 1839. 
 
 • November 14, 1839. • November 15, 1839. 
 
 " New York American, November 20, 1839; New York Commercial Advertiser, No- 
 vember 22, 1839. 
 
 " New York Courier and Enquirer, December 18, 1839; New York Evening Post, as 
 quoted in Charleston Mercury, January 28, 1840. Benton believed that the form 
 which assumption would take would be the distribution of the proceeds of the public 
 lands. (Cong. Globe, 26th Cong., ist Sess., Appendix, 87.) 
 
 ' New York Courier and Enquirer, February 6, 1840; Maysville Eagle, February 8, 
 1840; Boston Courier, February 11, 1840; Washington Glohe, February 12, 184a 
 
PUBLIC LANDS ANP THE ELECTION OF 1S40 77 
 
 would be compelled to assume them;* that he received a purse of 
 sixty-five thousand dollars from American bankers, of which the 
 New York contribution of thirty thousand dollars was raised at a 
 meeting called at the office of Baring Bros, in New York; ^ it even 
 presimied that Webster did not withdraw his name for the presi- 
 dency imtil a meeting was held with the London stockholders.* 
 The Globe also emphasized the fact that Webster received five 
 thousand dollars from Baring Bros., October 15, for sa3dng that the 
 States could legally contract debts, a fact which was already known, 
 and it pointed to the coincidence of this date with the date of the 
 Baring circular of October 18.' On the other hand, in a speech at 
 the Merchants' Meeting in New York, September 28, 1840, Webster 
 declared on his word of honor "that no European banker or foreign 
 holder of state securities ever suggested to me, in the remotest man- ' 
 ner, the least notion of the assumption of the state debts by the 
 National Government."* He admitted, however, that he was 
 interested in selling Massachusetts and New York bonds, and that 
 he carried with him in his trunk financial reports which persuaded 
 Englishmen to buy such securities.* The Democratic point of view 
 tbward Webster is exhibited by Bancroft's letter to Van Buren, 
 February 2, 1840: "He [Webster] returned from England wretch- ' 
 edly poor, although he made in 'England judicious sales of Western 
 lands. This I know from a private and authentic source. And from 
 the Barings he received not one thousand pounds merely, but four 
 times that sum, nearly twenty thousand dollars. This was, how- 
 ever, likewise told me privately but from authentic source." * 
 
 Benton's organ, the Missouri .4fgMS, declared that the first kernel 
 of assumption was an "ukase issued by Baring Bros, to their agents 
 and allies, the Whig party of £Sa.e United States, and promulgated in 
 
 ' February 3, 1840. * October 13, 1840; Extra Globe, September g, 1840. 
 
 ' September 7, and October 13, 184a The Missouri Argus, February 21, 1840, 
 stated that it was supposed that Webster was the author of the Baring circular. 
 
 * Speech of Webster at Merchants' Meeting, New York, September 28, 1840. 
 (Pamphlet, 16, Essex Institute, Salem.) 
 
 ' Proceedings of the Mass. Hist. Soc, 3d Series, n, 387^ That Webster may have 1- 
 continued to be interested in state stocks is shown by Bancroft's letter to Van Buren, 
 June 6, 1843: "Webster seems not unusually embarrassed for money. It is supposed 
 by many that he is retained by persons largely interested in state stocks, and derives a 
 good income from their hopes and their consequent liberality." {Ibid., 406.} 
 
78 TEE INFLUENCE OF TEE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 their ofl&cial Courier and Enquirer of New York. This was received 
 with becoming patronage and went the round of the Federal press. 
 The approbation of the party was expressed with a kind of faint 
 nibbling which might be supposed to express consent among friends 
 without betraying too far a general committal in its favor. Secretly, 
 however, pamphlets explanatory and inflammatory were dissemi- 
 nated all over the Union to the heads of Banks, Corporation Man- 
 agers, and Federal plot Leaders — a general and simultaneous 
 organization was present. A panic was to be created ... in the 
 midst of this panic assiunption was to be thrown to the people as 
 the only panacea." * 
 
 The policy of direct or indirect assumption naturally did not 
 appeal at all to the settlers, because the passage of preemption or 
 graduation would be endangered; but it appealed rather to the 
 moneyed element in the West and the East, those who desired the 
 payment of interest on the depreciated state stocks and their con- 
 sequent rise in value. The Whig friends of the project had become 
 silent just before the meeting of Congress, because in the face of a 
 Democratic majority in the Senate they could not hope for action, 
 and they would even endanger the final success of assumption by a 
 premature discomfiture; besides, if they agitated the question in 
 Congress, the representatives of the settler West would learn of 
 their plan, and they would lose the very votes in the presidential 
 election which they hoped to gain by other promises. The Whigs 
 preferred to wait until the campaign itself, when they might appeal 
 directly to just the element interested in govenmient assistance, 
 promising assumption if elected. 
 
 Benton, the champion of the settlers, to prevent the fulfillment 
 of such tactics, endeavored to force the Whigs to disclose their plan 
 by introducing resolutions, December 27, 1839, declaring assump-J 
 tion, in any form "a gross and flagrant violation of the Constitu- 
 tion," and condemning it as "unjust, unwise, impolitic, and dang- 
 erous, compelling the non-indebted States to incur burdens for 
 others which they had refused to incur for themselves, . . . pros- 
 trating the barriers of economy, moderation, and safety in the 
 creation of State debts, . . . establishing a dangerous precedent, 
 
 ' February 18, 1840. 
 
PUBLIC LANDS AND THE ELECTION OF 1840 79 
 
 which must soon be followed up by new debts on the part of the 
 States, and new assumptions on the part of the Federal Govern- 
 ment • . . begetting a spirit in Congress which must constantly 
 cater to distributions, by preventing necessary appropriations and 
 keeping up unnecessary taxes — laying the foundations for new 
 and excessive tariff duties on foreign imports, to fall unequally on 
 different parts of the Union, and most heavily on the planting, 
 grain-growing, and provision-raising States, to their manifest 
 injury and probable great discontent," and "tending to the con- 
 solidation of the States, and their ultimate abject dependence on 
 the Federal head." ^ The resolutions also emphasized that any 
 legislative attempt to attain national assumption would result in 
 enhancing the value of the depreciated stocks, to the great advan-'^ 
 tage of the foreign capitalists, their principal holders, "thereby 
 holding out inducements to foreigners to interfere in our affairs, 
 and to bring all the influences of a moneyed power to operate upon 
 public opinion, upon our elections, and upon State and Federal 
 legislation, to produce a consiunmation so tempting to their cupid- 
 ity, and so profitable to their interest." ^ To stop at once all appli- 
 cations for assimiption, the resolutions asked the Government 
 without delay to declare its absolute opposition to the proposal 
 of the Baring circular, reconmiending Congress "to assimie or 
 guarantee or provide for the ultimate payment" ' of the state 
 debts. 
 
 The Whigs tried to table Benton's resolutions, January 7, 1840,* 
 but were defeated by a strictly party vote,^ and these resolutions 
 were then referred to a select committee consisting of five Demo- 
 crats and two Whigs.^ On January 30, Grundy presented the report 
 of the committee, which upheld Benton's resolution, denounced the 
 States in debt as having been extravagant, and argued that the 
 non-indebted States should not be asked to pay the debts of those 
 
 • Cong. Globe, 26th Cong., ist Sess., 82. ' Ibid. 
 
 « Ibid., 83. * Ibid., 104. ' Ibid., 105. 
 
 • Ibid., 105. Grvmdy, of Tennessee, Democrat; Lumpkin, of Georgia, Democrat; 
 Smith, of Indiana, Whig; Young, of Illinois, Democrat; Hubbard, of New Hampshire, 
 Democrat; Allen, of Ohio, Democrat; and Merrick, of Maryland, Whig, constituted 
 the select committee. 
 
80 THE INFLUENCE OP TBE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 which by reckless action had become bankrupt.' The Whigs vio- 
 lently condemned the report as an administration attempt to dis- 
 credit the States who had not asked for aid, and contended that 
 the report supposed a contingency that was not likely to happen. ^ 
 Clay, of Alabama, replied by referring to the Baring circular and 
 quoting the Whig newspapers to prove that some of the Whigs had 
 actually been planning assumption.* Calhoun affirmed that the 
 anxiety of the Whigs to avoid a vote on the resolutions showed that 
 the plan to assimie the debts of the States, by dividing the proceeds 
 of the sales of public lands among them, was no idle fiction, and 
 that its burden would fall on the South, as an increase of the tariff 
 would be necessary to make good the resulting deficit in the Treas- 
 ury.* The New York Evening Post declared that the debate seemed 
 to exhibit pretty clearly that assumption had not been given up 
 by its friends, otherwise Benton's resolutions and Grundy's report 
 would not have been so violently attacked; that the object of the 
 Whigs appeared to be to prevent the report from being accepted by 
 the Senate, and so to suppress the view it took of the enormous 
 amount of state extravagance; and that they regarded it as wise to 
 postpone if possible the consideration of the question tiU the great 
 interests involved could be brought to bear in some way upon Con- 
 gress. "If the Senate should not commit itself by a decisive vote," 
 the New York Evening Post continued, "if it should do nothing 
 to discourage the corporations, the stock-jobbers and speculators 
 who hold state stock, or who own lands along the canals and rail- 
 roads built by the States, they may possibly manage to do what 
 was done with so much effect by the Bank of the United States 
 
 * Cong. Globe, 26th Cong., ist Sess., 155. The five Democrats had approved the 
 report, and the two Whigs had been opposed. (New York Courier and Enquirer, 
 February 6, 1840.) 
 
 ' Maysville Eagle, February 8, 1840; Boston Courier, February 11, 1840; Washing- 
 ton Globe, February i2, 1840; New York Courier and Enquirer, February 6, 1840. 
 
 * Cong. Globe, 26th Cong., ist Sess., Appendix, 127-29. 
 
 * Ibid., Appendix, 172-73; Charleston Mercury, January 28, 1840. Later, March 
 1, Calhoun reiterated the relation of assumption to the tariff. Cong. Globe, 26th Cong., 
 1st Sess., Appendix, 214. The Charleston Mercury, March 7, insisted that the connec- 
 tion between assumption, or distribution, and the tariff was established by logic and 
 by fact, as seen by Clay's championship of both measures, and by the agitation of 
 both subjects with equal Zeal by the same Northern newspapers. 
 
V 
 
 PUBLIC LANi:)S AND TBE ELECTION OF 1840 8 1 
 
 when it fought its great battle with the people. Let it be understood 
 that the question is an open one, and means may be found to rally a 
 strong party, to engage newspapers, and to present persuasive mo- 
 tives to active poUticians within and without the walls of Congress. 
 For our part we hope to see the report and resolutions immediately 
 adopted, and printed for the information of the public. We wish to 
 see this question settled at once on the general grounds of right and 
 justice and the provisions of the Constitution, before men's judg- 
 ments are darkened by the low consideration of private and local 
 interest. We are glad, therefore, that it has been brought up in the 
 Senate, and we hope that it will be disposed of in such a way as to 
 leave the friends of the project no hope of success either now or 
 hereafter, and effectually to put a stop to their intrigues." ^ 
 
 Gnmdy also considered that some of the Whigs were planning to 
 give assistance to the indebted States, as he wrote Polk from Wash- 
 ington, February 9: "I have no doubt that a direct or indirect 
 assumption of the State debts is intended by some of the leaders of 
 the Opposition ■ — This you know would produce a high Tariff, etc., 
 which is so much desired by the Capitalists of the North, . . . The 
 Intelligencer in a long article abusing and misrepresenting my 
 report does not deny the assumption as intended. If his party were 
 against the asstmiption, it would have said so. We have got the 
 opposition into a difficulty on this subject, from which they will find 
 it difficult to extricate themselves — To-morrow the subject will be 
 taken up in the Senate. It is the special order, we are determined 
 to push our adversaries to the wall and never let them off without 
 a direct vote on the iresolutions contained in the report." " 
 
 Grundy's belief was proved by the proceedings in Congress 
 the next day, when Crittenden proposed substitute resolutions,' 
 declaring that the debts of the several States had been constitu* 
 tionally contracted, that no ground existed for doubting the ability 
 or the disposition of the States to pay their debts, " that it would be 
 just and proper to distribute the proceeds of the sales of public 
 lands among the several States in fair and ratable proportions, and 
 that the conditioh of such of the States as have contracted debts is 
 such at the present mottient of pressure and difficulty as to reader 
 
 > February 3, 1840. ^ Polk MSS. » Cong. Globe, 26th Cong., 1st Sess., 178. 
 
82 TEE INFLUENCE OF TEE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 such distribution especially expedient and important." ' These 
 resolutions showed the attitude of the Whigs toward the debtor 
 States, appealing to them by fair proportions, and salving their 
 feelings by expressing respect for their financial credit. From now 
 on, everyday that these resolutions were considered, there appeared 
 a new Whig champion in their support. * Thus Benton's resolutions 
 had forced the Whigs to declare their hand, though they would have 
 preferred to wait imtil their plans had matured. 
 
 The Whigs, being in a decided minority, were in no position to 
 hope for a favorable issue. After Clay had failed in an attempt to 
 postpone indefinitely the whole subject,^ Crittenden's resolutions 
 were defeated by a party vote of 28 to 17,' and the same day Ben- 
 ton's resolutions were passed in a modified form by overwhelming 
 votes, as the Whigs declined to answer to their names.* These reso- 
 lutions declared that assmnption of debts, which had been, or may 
 be, contracted by the States for local objects, would be unjust, 
 dangerous, and wholly unauthorized by the Constitution, whether 
 by a direct promise to pay them, or indirectly by giving security 
 or by creating surplus revenues, though it was not intended thereby 
 "to create any doubt of the right of the States to contract debts, . . . 
 or of their disposition or ability to fulfill their engagements." ^ By 
 his publicity agitation Benton had aroused the South against the 
 passage of assumption, had endeavored to reveal the Whigs in 
 their true light to the settler West, and had weakened their appeal 
 to the moneyed class for support in the ensuing presidential cam- 
 paign. 
 
 Whig maneuvering did not stop with their attempt to appeal to 
 the moneyed class of the debtor States. They needed the support 
 of the settler West, whose chief interest was a liberal land policy. 
 To gain this they nominated, not Clay, the champion of distribu-j / 
 tion and the steadfast enemy of all pro-Western land measures, but 
 a Western man, Harrison, whose views were more liberal or at least 
 not so well known. By issuing no party platform they planned to 
 appeal to the different sections by promising what each wanted. 
 
 ' Cong. Globe, 26th Cong., ist Sess., 186, 209, 226, and 244. 
 
 ' Ibid., 212, February 20, 1840. The vote was strictly a party one. 
 
 • Ibid., 244, March 6. • Ibid., 244-48. ' Ibid., 245. 
 
PUBLIC LANDS AND THE ELECTION OF 1840 83 
 
 They were careful to make no definite promises, either in the 
 Harrisburg Nominating Convention or in the Yoimg Men's Con- 
 vention at Baltimore, but by their enthusiasm for log cabins and 
 hard cider they created the belief that they would support Western 
 land measures. 
 
 The Administration was decidedly in the lead for the favor of the 
 West, since these two elements had been cooperating for the last 
 two years on the subject of the public lands and the independent 
 Treasury. The Administration continued to support Western land 
 measures in 1840. It passed a graduation biU in the Senate by the 
 decisive vote of 28 to 8,' only to have it blocked in the House of 
 Representatives.'' An analysis of the vote in the Senate shows that 
 24 Democrats, joined by 4 Western Whigs truer to section than to 
 party, voted in favor, as against 6 Whigs, i Eastern Democrat, and 
 Calhoun. The Democrats again passed a preemption biU extending 
 the act of 1838 two years.' It went through the Senate easily, the 
 nays mustering only 6 Whigs, 2 Eastern Democrats, and Calhoun, 
 as against 22 Democrats and 4 Western Whigs in the affirmative.^ 
 In the House of Representatives, however, the outcome was doubt- 
 ivl. The Whigs tried hard to defeat the bill on collateral votes. 
 Levi Lincoln's amendment, May 26, striking out the essential fea- 
 tures of the bill, was defeated by a vote of only 97 to 86,^ and the 
 vote on the motion to reconsider, the day after the bill was passed, 
 was lost only by 103 to 96.* On May 26, the preemption bill was 
 passed by a vote of 126 to 64,^ many Western Whigs changing 
 sides,^ no doubt so that their vote might not seem inconsistent 
 
 ' Cong. Globe, 26th Cong., ist Sess., 355. Clay, of Alabama, had introduced the 
 bill, December 24, 1839. {Ibid., 79.) 
 
 ' Ibid., 546. It was tabled in the House of Representatives, July 21, 1840. 
 
 ' It was introduced by Clay, of Alabama, in the Senate, December 24, 1839 (Cong. 
 Globe, 26th Cong., ist Sess., 79), and reported by the Conmiittee on Public Lands, 
 January 10, 1840 (Ibid., 112). 
 
 * April 21, 1840. (Cong. Globe, 26th Cong., ist Sess., 342.) •■ Ibid., 420. 
 
 ' Ibid., 425. All the Whigs who had voted for the bill, except eight, turned against 
 it, or left the House. 
 
 ' Ibid., 421. 
 
 ' Fourteen Western Whigs voted for final passage after having tried to defeat the 
 force of the bill by Lincoln's amendment. Twelve of those who voted for final passage 
 shifted the next day in the attempt to reconsider the passage vote. 
 
84 THE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 with the Harrison log cabin campaign. But a majority of the Whigs 
 still voted against the bill, and the Washington Globe endeavored 
 to impress on the settlers the inconsistency between Whig cam- 
 paign promises and Whig action in Congress: "We now tell the 
 settlers on the Public Lands and frontier people plainly, that when 
 you hear these Federalists talking of Preemption rights, and what 
 Harrison has promised and will do for them, to remember the log 
 cabin promises made by the Federalists in Baltimore, May 4, and 
 the votes of these same Whigs on the bill intended to aid you in 
 buying you cabins." ^ The independent treasiuy bill, as ia earlier 
 sessions, easily passed the Senate by a vote of 24 to 18, 12 Western 
 Democrats voting with 11 Eastern Democrats, and Calhoun, as 
 against 2 Western Democrats, 6 Western and 10 Eastern Whigs.' 
 For the first time the independent treasury bUl passed the House of 
 Representatives, on June 30, by a vote of 124 to 107.' This was 
 certainly due, in part, to Democratic gains in the West, for now 32 
 Western Democrats voted for the bill as against 33 Western Whig 
 and Conservative nays, whereas in 1838 the Western' Democrats 
 could muster only 19 as against 47 in opposition.' Meanwhile Cal- 
 houn renewed his bid to the West by reintroducing his cession bill, 
 January 3, 1840.* This action by Calhoun stirred up Clay to inti- 
 mate that the measure was the result of some recent understanding 
 with Van Buren,' and Clay incited the Whig newspapers to make 
 vigorous accusations that Calhoim was joining forces with the 
 Administration, on the basis of the reelection of Van Buren in 1840 
 
 • June II, 1840. The Niles Intelligencer, Michigan, June lo, 1840, referred to the 
 preSmption act as carrying out "the benevolent policy of the Administration toward 
 the industrious citizen. What a contrast it is to the acts of the Whigs who are shedding 
 crocodile tears about the condition of the poor laborer, whose wages have been reduced 
 by the present Administration! But when a poor laborer tries to escape an Eastern 
 factory by settling the Public Domain, he becomes a land pirate." 
 
 ' Cong. Globe, 26th Cong., ist Sess., 141. ' Ibid., 493- 
 
 " Cong. Globe, 26th Cong., ist Sess., 96. Calhoun now included in his bill not only 
 graduation after 1842, but a preemption provision which granted to occupants the 
 right to buy at minimum prices for ninety days after every reduction by the gradua- 
 tion process. The States were now to pay to the United States annually fifty per cent 
 instead of thirty-three and a third per cent, as earlier. (Senate Bills and Resolutions, 
 36th Cong., ist Sess., no. tsi.) 
 
 ' Washington Globe, January 4, 1840. 
 
PUBLIC LANDS AND TEE ELECTION OF 1840 85 
 
 and the election of Calhoun to the presidency in 1844.* The Whig 
 newspapers had already declared that Van Buren was buying the 
 votes of the West by giving them preemption and graduation.^ 
 "No one, who understands the character of the party in control 
 now," declared the Connecticut Courant, "and who considers their 
 existence as a party at stake in that election [1840] could entertain 
 a doubt that the lands would be the bribe to secure the votes of the 
 Western States to President Van Biiren." ^ Some foundation ex- 
 isted for the fears of the Whigs that Calhoun and Van Buren were 
 joining forces, since these two elements voted against the reconsid- 
 eration of the reference of the cession bill to the Committee on Pub- 
 he Lands.^ The Whig newspapers considered this bill the most 
 important subject presented to Congress at this session, calling it 
 a great electioneering engine to "secure to Mr. CaIho\m as a candi- 
 date for the Presidency the electoral vote of the nine States already 
 in existence and the States of Iowa, Wisconsin, and Florida that 
 are to be admitted to the Union before the next presidential elec- 
 tion." ^ Both the Administration and Calhoun denied that they 
 had combined,^ and Calhoun denied that he had any aspirations 
 for the presidency.'' 
 
 The Whigs continued their inconsistent policy of adapting the 
 public land issue to the interests of the different sections in the elec- 
 
 ' Connecticut Courant, January 11, 1840; New York Courier and Enquirer, January 
 8, February 5, 1840; Washington Globe, January 4, 1840. 
 
 ' Connecticut Courant, November 2, 1839; May 2, 1840; Salem Gazette, February 4; 
 May 16, 1840. 
 
 " December 14, 1839. 
 
 * Senate Journal, 26th Cong., ist Sess., 72. Calhoun's cession bill was reported by 
 Norvell, of Michigan, from the Coromittee oa Public Lands, May 13, 1840 (Ibid., 
 367), accompanied by a report covering the whole subject, which bore the marks of 
 CaUioun's hand. (Calhoun, to Mrs. Clemson, Calhoun Correspondence, n, 459; Charles- 
 ton Mercury, June 4, 1840.) 
 
 ■■ New York Herald, as quoted in Charleston Mercury, January 20, 1840. See also 
 The Axe, Cleveland, May 14, 1840; Xenia Torchlight, January 23, 1840; New York 
 Express, January 7, 1840; Philadelphia American Sentinel, as quoted by National 
 Intelligencer, both in Charleston Mercury, January 15, 1840, which denied hostile 
 accusations. 
 
 6 Washington Globe, as quoted in Charleston Mercury, January ii; 1840; Charles- 
 ton Mercury, January T4, 1840. 
 
 ' Letter of J. C. Calhoun, January 7, 1840, to Charleston Mercury, Charleston 
 Mercury, January 15, r840. 
 
86 TEE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 , . / 
 tion itself. In the East they were champions of public land distn- 
 
 bution and the ardent enemies of any pro- Western poUcy, and 
 proclaimed Harrison to be the protector of Eastern iaterests. The 
 following quotation from a Whig campaign pamphlet, published 
 in Boston, reveals Whig methods in the East in clear outline: "We 
 appeal to you freemen of Massachusetts. The proposition of Cal- 
 houn, Benton, and others to give away the Lands robs each one of 
 you of $134. Those of you who have supported Van Buren we 
 appeal to. He is seeking his own interest and administering the 
 Government in such a way as to insure his reelection. Are you 
 willing to have him withhold from you in these hard times $134? 
 There is nomistake in this matter. He and his friends wish to give 
 these Lands to the Western States. They have more than once 
 proposed it, and they will do it, if you strengthen their hands." ' 
 A letter was written from Boston to the National Intelligencer by 
 a friend of Harrison with the ostensible purpose of appeaUng to the 
 business classes of the East: "Li regard to public poUcy I found he 
 cherished the same general views entertained by the Whigs without 
 being ultra or dogmatical. His views on the Public Land question 
 were in accord with those sustained by Mr. Clay in the Congress 
 preceding the time of our conversation." ^ The Democrats did 
 their best to reveal to the West the Whig tactics. They republished^ 
 in the West the Boston Harrison letter, to show the Western set- 
 tlers the true views of the Whig candidate on the pubhc land 
 question. They quoted from Eastern Democratic papers to show 
 that Harrison was being interpreted differently in different parts of 
 the covmtry: "Let General Harrison avow in the West as narrow, 
 ungenerous sentiments as his Eastern supporters avow and he 
 would not get a himdred votes in all the Western States"; * and 
 they endeavored to bring home to the people that the issue was 
 between Van Buren and the Democratic party who had originated 
 and carried out a Uberal land policy, and Harrison and the Whig 
 party who had throughout bitterly opposed such a policy.' There 
 
 ' Campaign pamphlet, Boston, 1840. 
 
 ' Quoted in Washington Globe, May 7, 1840. 
 
 • Arkansas Gazette, June 3, 1840. 
 
 * Detroit Democratic Free Press, October 8, 1840. 
 ' Missouri Argus, February 13, 1840. 
 
PUBLIC LANDS AND THE ELECTION OF 1840 87 
 
 is no evidence except in accusations by the Missouri Argus ^ and 
 Sevier, of Arkansas,^ that the Whigs made definite public land 
 promises in the West. They did not formulate their position on the 
 land question, but they did all in their power to convince the West 
 of Harrison's friendship.^ 
 
 That they were successful in creating this belief was shown by 
 the fact that the election of Harrison was largely due to the log 
 
 ] cabin campaign in the West. It might have been supposed that the 
 
 ' Whigs would at once introduce a permanent preemption bill to 
 benefit the inhabitants of log cabins. On the contrary. Clay inter- 
 
 ; preted the results of the election as supporting his distribution'^ 
 plan, and as soon as Congress met promptly brought in a resolution 
 calling for information regarding receipts from public land since 
 1828. This move of Clay's was at once met by Benton with what 
 was called the "Log Cabin Bill," * providing for permanent pre- 
 emption. He declared that the Democrats had long been for pre- 
 emption, and that the election had shown that the Whigs had come 
 
 I around to it. He attacked Clay for his disloyalty to his promises, 
 and aflSrmed that these promises should now be fulfilled by legisla- 
 tive enactment.^ Benton's Western supporters upheld his position, 
 and Jackson himself approved it as "an excellent move — it places 
 Clay in a position that he must vote for the BUI, or expose his 
 hypocrisy in all the speeches he made during his last canvass for the 
 Presidency — his speech at Nashville ought to be brought to his 
 view, in which he concluded by the emphatic appeal to the congre- 
 gated assembly — 'Yes,' said he, 'feUow-citizens, the battle is now 
 between the log cabins and the palaces.' Mr. Clay betook himself 
 
 ' Missouri Argus, February 13, 1840, asserted that Harrison was in favor of "agra- 
 rian loco foco land measures." 
 
 ' Cong. Globe, 26th Cong., 2d Sess., Appendix, 67. 
 
 ' Arkansas Gazette, June 3, 1840; Letter of Jolin T. Stuart, Whig, to Northwestern 
 Gazette and Galena Advertiser, July 10, 1840: "To Harrison we owe division of public 
 lands into small lots. ... He was the first to introduce preemption law into Congress. 
 ... In a word he is a friend of every measure having to do with Western interest." 
 
 * Benton introduced it, December 14, 1840. (Cong. Globe, 26th Cong., 2d Sess., 13.) 
 
 ' "The poor man and ... the log cabin have become the absorbing objects, and the 
 burning themes of their [Whig] love and eloquence. . . . Now the cabin, the poor man, 
 and the preemption, go together; and he that loves one must love the other." {Ibid., 
 14.) 
 
88 TEE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 to the palaces, and the log cabin men to Mr. Foster's old field, there 
 to eat themselves poor and the canopy their covering, and I have no 
 doubt when the vote is taken on Colonel Benton's Bill, he will for- 
 sake the Cabin Boys, and betake himself to the palaces, leaving the 
 Cabin Boys to shift for themselves. We shall see. This movement 
 of his [Benton's] will compel those demagogues to vote for his Bill 
 or destroy themselves in the South and West. Let Benton's speech 
 be published widely — circulated with the ayes and nays on 
 it." 1 
 
 For a while the Whigs fought shy of Benton's bill, but finally, on 
 January 6, 1841, they laid aside their reserve and attacked it, first 
 by Prentiss ^ moving to strike out the permanent feature of the 
 bill, and then, on January 8, by Crittenden ' moving that the bill 
 be recommitted with instructions that the committee bring in a 
 distribution measure. As Jackson had prophesied. Clay was aban- 
 doning the " Cabin Boys" and betaking himself to the "palaces." 
 "The farce is over," said the Washington Glohe, "the himabuggery 
 is finished — the gourds, the coon-skins, the log cabins, the poor 
 men are all kicked to the dogs . . . such is the difference between 
 promise before election and performance after it. Such is Federal 
 cheatery practiced on the people." ^ Blair characterized ^ Critten- 
 den's amendment as an attempt to smother the log cabin bill imder 
 the distribution bill. Cambreleng, writing to Van Buren, declared 
 that "The Federalists will have their hands full. They will give 
 away the Public Lands, and if they don't raise a squall in the West 
 worse than the Whiskey Insurrection, I am mistaken." ^ Watterson 
 commented in a letter to Polk that "The love of the Whig leaders 
 in Congress for the inmates of Log Cabins has greatly cooled down 
 since the election." ^ Calhoun, aroused by Clay's attempt to pass 
 distribution, " rose and played his trump," ^ moving on January 11 
 
 ' Jackson to Blair, January $, 1841. (Jackson MSS.) 
 
 ' Cong. Globe, 26th Cong., 2d Sess., Appendix, 27. 
 
 • Ibid., go. 
 
 • January 11, 1841. 
 
 " Blair to Jackson, 'January 30, 1841. (Jackson MSS.) 
 
 • January 13, 1841. (Van Buren MSS.) 
 ' February i, 1841. (Polk MSS.) 
 
 ' Charleston Mercury, January 15, 1841. 
 
PUBLIC LANDS AND TEE ELECTION OP 1840 89 
 
 that his cession bill, introduced in other forms by him in 1837 and 
 1840, be substituted * for distribution as an amendment to Benton's 
 permanent preemption bill. Calhoim's bill now included gradua- 
 tion, permanent preemption, and a return of sixty-five per cent of 
 the gross receipts to the Government. 
 
 So three plans for the disposition of the public domain were again 
 [before the Senate: the Whig Eastern plan of distribution, the 
 ' Democratic Western plan of preemption, and the Southern plan of 
 I cession. What possibility was there of the success of one or more 
 of these measures? 
 
 Contemporary opinion varied. Nicholson wrote to Polk: "It is 
 maJiifest that the whole of the session will be consumed in dis- 
 cussing Land questions . . . with a distinct imderstanding that 
 nothing definite is to be done." ^ Calhoun did not expect to 
 carry his cession plan at this time: "It had to compete both with 
 Distribution and Benton's Preemption scheme; but when the vote 
 comes to be between it and Distribution, it has a fair prospect of 
 success." * The New York Herald declared that a rigid majority 
 was determined to carry through Benton's log cabin bill nearly in 
 its original shape.^ 
 One of the strongest factors working for the success of Clay's 
 L-^distribution substitute was the financial element, at home and 
 abroad, who held the stocks of the bankrupt States. Since the issue 
 of Baring's circular, October 20, 1839, recommending goverrmient 
 aid to the credit of the needy internal improvement States, English 
 financial interests seem to have made their influence felt in the 
 councils of the Whig party. They had a large share in initiating the 
 Whig project of assimaption before the election, and they had a 
 hand in the election itself. Evidence of this is not confined to vigor- 
 ous and repeated accusations by Democratic newspapers,^ but 
 includes the letters of Huth & Co. to the President of the Bank of 
 
 ■ Cong. Globe, 26th Cong., 2d Sess., 95. 
 
 » January 13, 1841. (Polk MSS.) 
 
 > February 23, 1841. {Calhoun Correspondence, n, 476.) 
 
 * January 7, 1841. 
 
 ' Extra (Washington) Globe, August 26, September 9, 18, October 12, 1840, Jan- 
 uary 12, February 4, 1841 ; New York Evening Post, June 4, 1840; Albany Argus, Janu- 
 ary 26, 1841. 
 
90 TEE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 Missouri,! and especially those of Rothschild & Co.^ to Webster 
 and to Harrison, the tone and language of which certainly indicate 
 more than ordinary interest in American poHtics and point to the 
 possibility of collusion between foreign bankers and certain Whig 
 leaders. So we are not surprised to find Benton in the debate on his 
 log cabin bill strongly denoimcing the British iaterference with the 
 
 ' These two letters are given in the Albany Argus, January 26, 1841, and in a speech 
 by Benton, January 26, 1841 {Cong. Globe, 26th Cong., 2d Sess., Appendix, 118). 
 The General Assembly of Missouri regarded these letters as evidence of a direct inter- 
 ference on the part of English capitalists in the presidential election {Ibid., 119). 
 
 London, June 3, 1840. 
 Your bonds received. There is no market for them at present. The attention of 
 our capitalists and others engaged in American affairs is now turned to your internal 
 politics, and if the prospects held out by the last accounts should be realized for your 
 next Presidential election, this circumstance will contribute more than any other to 
 restore general confidence. 
 
 Free Huth & Co. 
 
 John Smith, Pres. 
 of the Bank of Mo. 
 
 London, Sept. n, 1840. 
 Yours of July 9 and 29 received. We cannot sell your bonds at present. If, how- 
 ever, your elections for the Presidentship should have the result now anticipated, it is 
 very probable that an impulse will be given to aU State stocks, and the moment may 
 then arrive when your bonds can be introduced under favorable auspices. 
 
 Fkee Huth & Co. 
 
 John Sbhth, President 
 of the Bank of Mo. 
 
 2 Albany Argus, July 16, 1841. 
 
 London, Apr. a, 1841. 
 To Haekison — President, — 
 
 We addressed you a letter on March 9th. [This one was not included in those sent 
 by Webster to Tyler, and by him transmitted to Congress, June 29, 1841, in compli- 
 ance with Resolution of the Senate.] Indiana is liablenot to pay interest on some loans, 
 If so, the credit of the States and the country would suffer. . . . The least interposition 
 from you would not fail to afford relief in the present case, and it appears to us, in 
 order to be effective, some measure should be adopted with as little delay as possible. 
 
 V. M. Rothschild & Sons. 
 
 London, Apr. 7, 1841. 
 To the Secretary of State, — 
 
 We have written the President about the deficiency in the means of Indiana to pro- 
 vide for the pajonent of her July dividend. . . . We beg leave to represent to you that 
 any interposition in her behalf would require to be prompt in order to be effectual. 
 
 V. M. Rothschild. 
 
PUBLIC LANDS AND THE ELECTION OF 1840 9 1 
 
 election,! and we can readily see that these powerful fin.ancial ele- 
 ments, holding depreciated state stock, were working their hardest ^ 
 to get the distribution of the public land proceeds. So stirred were 
 the Democratic leaders over this reaching out of capitaHsm beyond 
 national boundaries that Blair wrote earnestly to Jackson, January 
 30, 1841: "Benton's speech, which touched the interference of the 
 British in the election (who are now to be repaid by Distribution t^ 
 of the Public Domain), was one of the most powerful ever delivered 
 in Congress. I wish you would put your veto on this foreign inter- 
 ference, so manifest now in all ovir poUtical movements, and in the 
 very legislation of Congress, in some strong passages of a letter to 
 me so that I may bring it out with some dark hint at the author. 
 I think your warning voice would do good on this subject." ^ The 
 Washington Globe voiced the general Democratic opinion when it 
 vigorously attacked Clay for opposing the passage of the log cabin 
 bill, declaring that his hostility was due to his having another des- 
 tination for the public lands : " They are to be reserved for the use 
 of the class to whom the marble palaces belong. The public know 
 that Mr. Clay proposes a distribution of the Public Lands, nom- 
 inally to the States, but in truth to make good to the purchasers the 
 state stocks which the Bank of the United States and others have 
 sold in Europe. It is this which weighs so heavily against the Bill, 
 and makes the scale of the Log Cabins kick the beam, over-balanced 
 by the banking, speculating, stock-jobbiag interests." ' Thus, the 
 Democrats insisted, the issue between distribution and permanent 
 preemption was clearly between the moneyed aristocracy and the 
 pioneer democracy. 
 
 Calhoun, seeing clearly the intimate relation between distribu-' 
 tion, or indirect assumption, and the tariff, had joined with the 
 
 ' We have seen the election " of our American President made a stock- jobbing opera- 
 tion on the London Exchange. We have seen EngUsh bankers and money dealers 
 turning their attention to the internal politics of America,' and ' trying a change of the 
 American Executive' in order that stocks might rise, and themselves pocket percent- 
 ums on the American securities which they held! We have seen this; and it seems to 
 me that, to have 'the change of the American President' converted into a stock- jobbing 
 operation on the London Exchange, is to reach a point of humiliation which no Govern- 
 ment has ever seen before." {Cong. Globe, 26th Cong., 2d Sess., Appendix, 60.) 
 ' Jackson MSS. ^ ' January 4, 1841. 
 
92 THE INFLUENCE OF TEE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 West in condemning the Whigs who were supporting it; but he was^ 
 not content with helping the Democrats defeat distribution, and so 
 making more liable a fair tariff. He wanted to revive the Southern 
 and Western alliance of 1830 and 1832, by the exchange of land 
 legislation favorable to the West for Western support for a lower 
 tariff. By putting the West definitely imder obligations to him, 
 as he would by his cession bill, he might be surer of a tariff favor- 
 able to the South, when it was readjusted in 1842, than by merely 
 opposing distribution or supporting permanent preemption. 
 
 The objects of Clay, Calhoun, and Benton in this land situation 
 were similar, to the extent that each was trying to protect directly 
 his section or class. Clay was looking out for the moneyed class, 
 Benton was championing the settler West, and Calhoun was taking 
 care of the anti- tariff South.' Both Clay and Calhoun were also 
 using public lands indirectly as a lever to get other legislation 
 passed, a high tariff and a low tariff, respectively. Each was appeal- 
 ing to the selfishness of the West to gain his end. Clay by the twelve 
 and one half per cent bonus to the new States and their share in 
 the general distribution, and Calhoun by giving the West, in his 
 cession bUl, graduation and permanent preemption, as well as the 
 difference between thirty-five per cent of the gross receipts from 
 public lands and the cost of their administration by the States. 
 
 What happened was that, on January 19, both Crittenden's and 
 Calhoim's amendments were lost,^ the former by a vote of 24 to 17, 
 and the latter by a vote of 22 to 18. The analysis of these votes 
 shows that Clay's distribution amendment was as in former years a 
 Whig measure and was defeated by the whole force of the Demo- 
 cratic party, while Calhoun's cession amendment was a Southern 
 
 ' Party newspapers accused Clay, Benton, and Calhoun of using the public lands to 
 advance their political aspirations for the presidency. Thus the Washington Globe, for 
 example, asserted that "from the time that Clay brought in his land bill, and especi- 
 ally the time and manner in which he brought it in, this land distribution scheme was 
 considered as a bid to the States for the Presidential chair. . . . The land distribution 
 scheme . . . now is pushed again by Mr. Crittenden, to enable Mr. Clay to get a con- 
 firmation of his title to the Succession. Thus Mr. Clay's bill is a bid for the presidency " 
 (January 13, 1841). See also New York Courier and Enquirer, January 9, 21, 1841. 
 Benton's whole career is a repudiation of the Whig charge that he was using public 
 lands to promote his presidential ambition. 
 
 ' Cong. Globe, 26th Cong., 2d Sess., iia. 
 
PUBLIC LANDS AND THE ELECTION OP 1840 93 
 
 and Western sectional measure and was defeated by a combination 
 of Whigs and Eastern Democrats, who probably opposed it from 
 mixed motives, sectional and class interest, and jealousy of a politi- 
 cal rival. Not satisfied with this discomfiture, Crittenden, on Jan- 
 uary 21, again moved the distribution amendment,' and on Feb- 
 ruary I, Young, of Illinois, moved Calhoun's cession bill in place of 
 Crittenden's amendment.'' On February 2, both were lost again, 
 Clay's by a vote of 29 to 22,' and Calhoun's by 31 to 20.' The 
 distribution vote was more representative this time; the ayes con- 
 sisted of Whigs and two Democrats from Pennsylvania, a' State 
 which wanted to benefit by distribution, while the nays included, 
 as before, the Democratic party, assisted by Southern and Western 
 Whigs, truer to section than to party. The complexion of the cession 
 vote was the same as earlier. On the same day, February 2, Ben- 
 ton's original bill passed the Senate by the decisive vote of 31 to 
 19.* Of the 31, 4 were Western Whigs; the remainder were Demo- 
 crats, with the exception of Talhnadge and Webster. Webster, now 
 that the issue was not permanent preemption as against distribu- 
 tion, stood by his pro-preemption attitude of 1838. The nays were 
 all Whigs except Calhovin and one Eastern Democrat. As was 
 expected, Benton's biU was not taken up by the House. This may 
 be attributed to the combination of Whigs, the East, and Cal- 
 houn's followers, as seen in the defeat of graduation in the first 
 session. 
 
 Though Benton's bill had not become law, the Democrats as- 
 serted that it had succeeded in showing up the insmcerity of the 
 Whigs. Jackson noted this in a letter to Blair: " Give my regards 
 to Benton for his exertions to have passed the Log Cabin Law 
 which has been the means of exposing so much the hypocracy [sic] of 
 Clay, Webster, and their corrupt coadjutors." ^ It would never 
 have come law if the distribution amendment had been added, < 
 because Van Buren was ready to veto in such a case. In his draft 
 for the veto he stated that he approved prospective preemption, as 
 it carried "into fuller effect a policy in regard to the disposition of 
 
 » Cong. Globe, 26th Cong., 2d Sess., 138. ' Ibid., Appendix, 98. 
 
 > Ibid., 104. * Ibid., 138. 
 
 ' Jackson MSS., undated, presumably February, 1841. 
 
94 TEE INFLUENCE OF TEE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 Public Lands which in my opinion is calculated to produce more real 
 practical advantage to the industrious poor in every portion of the 
 Union than any single measure which the Federal Government has 
 adopted since its establishment, or which it has the constitutional 
 power to adopt." ^ As to distribution, Van Buren stated that his 
 attitude toward it had been expressed in his letter to Sherrod Wil- 
 liams, of Kentucky, in 1835, and his view then held had been 
 "strengthened by subsequent observation and reflection. Jackson 
 was reelected President of the United States after having withheld 
 consent to the Distribution Bill. I was elected his successor with 
 full knowledge that I would carry out his poHcy. I feel I may 
 assiune — since my vote in 1840 was fifteen per cent higher than in 
 1836 — that .nothing has been proved by the election to absolve me 
 from my pledge to the people of the United States before they 
 elected me President in 1836. Therefore, I withhold my approval 
 from the Bill." " 
 
 The morality of distributing the proceeds of the pubKc lands, 
 when there was no money in the Treasury, was seriously questioned 
 by the New York Herald. It praised the action of Rives, Preston, 
 and Wise in opposing the financial pohcy of Clay and Webster, and 
 declared "that the conduct of Messrs. Preston and Rives, and the 
 declarations of Mr. Wise, will receive the sanction of the country, 
 whatever the stock-jobbers and their agents may say or do. The 
 principle of Distribution of an empty Treasury is a principle of 
 atrocious robbery." ' "Who receives the money so distributed? 
 The stock-jobbers and the politicians of the several States, who will 
 waste it as they did the twenty-nine millions already plimdered in 
 the same way. If the annual proceeds of these lands be taken out 
 of the Public Treasury, who makes up the deficiency? The great 
 mass of people who pay the taxes on foreign imports." * The New 
 York Herald considered that the aim of the Clay- Webster financial 
 policy was to restore the financial conditions of 1836, "to call forth 
 again the big blue flies of 1836, flying around and around the fresh 
 beef of their coimtry, and blowing it up to its former dimen- 
 sions." ' 
 
 ' Van Buren MSS., February, 1841. ' Ihid. 
 
 ' February s, 1841. * January 27, 1841. ' February 3, 1841. 
 
PUBLIC LANDS AND THE ELECTION OF 1840 95 
 
 The importance of the disposition of the public lands at this time 
 may readily be inferred from the narration of its fortimes during 
 this session of Congress, but a few quotations from contemporaries 
 may serve to clarify the r61e which it was playing. Calhoim wrote 
 to Burt, January 24, 1841: "I regard the fate of the coming Ad-' 
 ministration as staked on the question [distribution]"; ' and later, 
 February 19, in his letter to Maxcy: "If it [the Whig victory in the 
 election] shall end in the overthrow of the party coming in and the 
 defeat of their two leading measures, a Bank, and the distribution 
 of the revenue from the Public Lands, I have no doubt it will prove 
 in the end a blessing to the coimtry; but, if otherwise, it would be 
 difl&cult to say what would come." ^ January 30, 1841, Blair wrote 
 to Jackson: "You perceive that the Log Cabin Bill has brought out 
 the whole force of both parties in the Senate. Clay endeavored to 
 smother it under his Distribution Bill, and this has brought on a 
 discussion which, I am sure, will not end until Harrison is ousted, 
 and it embraces all the principal measures which characterise the 
 two great parties." ' The New York Express declared, February 6, 
 1841 : "As to the Distribution of the Proceeds of the Pubhc Lands, 
 an early settlement of that question is one that so transcends the 
 tariff in importance, or any principle of revenue, that in discussion 
 it scarcely ought to be mingled with them." 
 
 * Calhoun Correspondence, n, 472. 
 
 2 GaUoway MSS. ' Jackson MSS. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 ATTEMPT OF THE WHIGS TO USE THE VICTORY OF 184O 
 
 The Whigs had been unable immediately to convert their inter- 
 pretation of the victory of 1840 into terms of concrete legislation, 
 because of the Democratic majority in the Senate, which remained 
 in office until March 4, 1841. Meanwhile they were looking forward 
 with keen anticipation to the next session when with their majority 
 in Senate and House ' they planned to use their victory to the fullest 
 extent. That fruition might come as soon as possible, a Whig sena- 
 torial caucus was held, which agreed to recommend that Harrison 
 call an extra session tosettleanimiberof measures, one of which was 
 the settlement of the land question on the principle of Clay's biU for 
 the distribution of the annual proceeds to the States. The Washing- 
 ton Globe declared that the Whigs had determined on this extra 
 session for fear that the "sober second thought of the industrious 
 yeomanry of the Union" would be awakened, and so that "the bill 
 for distributing the Public Lands may be rushed through with a 
 hard-cider hurrah." ^ Before the extra session met, Harrison had 
 died and John Tyler had become President. 
 
 Tyler, as a strict constructionalist, had followed a consistent 
 policy against the Bank, internal improvements, and a protective 
 tariff during his political career. He had supported Jackson for 
 President in 1828 and 1832 as the choice of evils, but had left him 
 because of the force bill, and had become affiliated with the old 
 National Republicans, who had surrendered their former issues, 
 Bank, high tariff, and internal improvements. After the election of 
 1840, Clay had assumed the leadership and had revived these old 
 issues. A breach had already taken place between Clay and Har- 
 rison before the latter's death, and a conffict between Clay and 
 
 ' The Whig majority was only 44 in the House and 7 5n the Senate, but the Whig 
 leaders placed high hopes on all remaining true. 
 ' February 8, 1841. 
 
TEE WHIGS AND THE VICTORY OF 1840 97 
 
 Tyler was to be expected, as Tyler was more fixed against these 
 issues than Harrison. Tyler was willing to distribute the proceeds of 
 \ the public lands, if a higher tariff did not result.* As Clay insisted 
 1 on distribution in the extra session, whether it involved an increase 
 I of duties or not, Tyler was forced into an alliance with the pioneer 
 ! West, the descendants of the up-country Virginians who had been 
 \the bitter foes of his own ancestors of low-country Virginia. In his 
 message to the Congress of the special session, Tyler recommended 
 distribution, provided that it did not mean a higher tariff than had '^ 
 been intended by the compromise of 1833. Though he did not ap- 
 prove of direct assimiption, he favored helping the debtor States 
 to this extent, thus assuring the country's return to prosperity.-/ 
 The expenses of the Government would be paid by raising duties to 
 the twenty per cent level on articles hitherto free, and the passage ^ 
 of distribution would not prevent the passage of preemption laws, 
 or the reduction in the price of public lands.'' June 24, Johnson, of 
 Maryland, reported in the House, from a Whig Committee on Pub- 
 lic Lands, a bill providing for permanent distribution, except in 
 '\ time of war, and permanent preemption.' The Whigs had learned 
 from experience in the previous session that their best chance of 
 passing distribution would be by a compromise measure that would 
 conciliate the West. Just as Clay appealed to the new West by a 
 twelve and one half per cent bonus in 1832, so now he appealed to 
 it by preemption. That he was wise is shown by Wright's letter to 
 Van Buren, June 26, 1841 : "The new State Whigs will go for Dis- 
 tribution and Preemption combined, and in that way will pass the 
 former."* 
 
 Let us examine the influences which were working for and against 
 the passage of this compromise measure. In the first place, it was 
 recommended by Clay, the leader of the Whig party, and so was 
 regarded as a party measure, to fulfill promises made in the presi- 
 dential campaign.^ It would appeal, besides, to certain Eastern 
 Democrats who were more loyal to section than to party. In addi- 
 
 ' L. G. Tyler, Tyler, 11, 139-48; m, 93- 
 
 ' Richardson, Messages and Papers, iv, 47-48. 
 
 ' Bills and Resolutions, House of Representatives, 27th Cong., ist Sess., no. 4. 
 
 i Van Buren MSS. ^ Cong. Globe, 27th Cong., ist Sess., 147-4S. 
 
98 THE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 tion, tariff men favored it, for it would insure a higher tariff when 
 readjustment came in 1842, and it would prevent the danger of 
 constant dickering with the tariff, resulting from varying sales of 
 public lands. Distribution was regarded by the tariff forces as a 
 lever in 1841; it was to prove a stumbling-block in 1842. The 
 debtor States ' favored the bill because they needed their share to 
 pay the interest on their issues of securities. That the holders of 
 state stocks at home and abroad continued to exercise a powerful 
 influence for federal aid has been seen in the letters of foreign 
 bankers to Harrison and Webster during the spring of 1841. It is 
 not surprising to find personal representatives of these interests in 
 Washington during this session.^ Since government assumption 
 was not possible, the Whigs were conceding public land distribu- - 
 tion. The New York Herald vigorously denounced this catering to 
 a special class to the injury of the country as a whole, and claimed 
 that the backbone of the country would be restored to prosperity 
 in a natural way without legislative enactment.' That this perma- 
 nent distribution and preemption bill would take the pubHc lands 
 out of politics was also put to its credit. 
 
 Against the passage of this bill was arrayed the Democratic 
 party, which knew that public land distribution would checkmate 
 their plan for the solution of the land question, namely, permanent 
 preemption and graduation. Calhoun and the South were sec- 
 tionally opposed, because the passage of distribution made more 
 liable a high tariff, especially as there was then a deficit in the Treas- 
 ury. The independent element in both parties was influenced by 
 principles of sound finance against the bill, for if the public land 
 money was distributed, a loan would have to be floated or Treasury 
 notes issued to carry on the Government. Further opposition was 
 aroused by calling distribution the first step toward complete as- 
 sumption, by attributing it to foreign influence, and by claiming 
 that it really came from the customs revenue, because from the 
 beginning public lands had not paid expenses. 
 
 > See chapter iv, 78. 
 
 ' Benton, Thirty Years' View, 11, 243; Richmond £«5M»r«f, June 17, 1842; Albany 
 Argus, July IS, 1841. 
 
 ' June 22, August 2, 1841. 
 
THE WHIGS AND THE VICTORY OF 1840 99 
 
 These influences had little chance to operate on the members of 
 the House, because the bill was passed there during great excite- 
 ment and confusion. At least a hundred amendments were offered, 
 but the noise was so great that they could not be heard.' The 
 Whigs had a small but inexorable majority, and it was but seldom 
 that the Speaker would recognize the motion of a Democratic mem- 
 ber. The Whig party forced the final vote, and permanent pre- 
 emption and distribution passed the House, July 6, by a strictly 
 party vote of 116 to 108.^ In the opinion of Greeley's Log Cabin, 
 this was the greatest measure of the session.' 
 
 When the bill came before the Senate, considerable doubt existed 
 as to the ability of the Whigs to pass it. McClellan wrote to Van 
 Buren, July 22, that the general supposition was that the land bill 
 would fail in the Senate.* Choate wrote Davis, on the 25th, that 
 "thefateof the Land Bill is doubtful even if we all go for it." ^ The 
 New York Herald believed that only the bankruptcy bill of the 
 Whig programme would be passed during the special session, that a 
 Committee of Inquiry would sit during the recess, and that, based 
 on their report, the President would submit in his message in 
 December a full system of finance, — Bank, tariff, public lands, 
 and currency, — meeting the expectations of the practical men of 
 the country as a whole.^ Clay certainly had a devious coiu-se to 
 steer to conciliate hostile elements and obtain a majority for his 
 measure, but the leaders of the opposition were willing to admit 
 that in the end he would be victorious.' 
 
 Clay was not sure of the support of certain Southern free-trade 
 Whigs — Rives, Preston, Berrien, and Archer. If they should turn 
 against the bill he would need the vote of Henderson, of Missis- 
 sippi, who would not support the bill unless the bankruptcy bill 
 were passed first. In order to clear one obstacle from his way. Clay 
 was willing to pass the bankruptcy bill to get the vote of Hender- 
 son. This log-rolling is clear from the procedure and is amply corro- 
 
 " Cong. Globe, 27th Cong., 1st Sess., iSS-S6- ' ^*''<^-. is6. 
 
 ' July 10, 1841. ' Van Buren MSS. 
 
 ^ Davis MSS. » July 26, 1841. 
 
 ' Wright to Van Buren, June 21, 1841 (Van Buren MSS.); Charleston Mercury, 
 July 14, 1841. 
 
100 THE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 borated by contemporary evidence.* Through Clay's influence, the 
 bankruptcy bill was laid on the table in the House, to show its sup- 
 porters that it could not be passed unless Henderson would vote for 
 distribution in the Senate. The very next day, August i8, the vote 
 was reconsidered and the bill passed. Meanwhile, in the Senate 
 the engineers of the distribution and preemption bill postponed 
 voting imtil they were sure of the support of the friends of the 
 bankruptcy bill. The bankruptcy bill was brought before the 
 Senate, and Walker moved that the distribution bill be laid on 
 the table. Then the bankruptcy biU was taken up and passed. The 
 bankruptcy supporters insisted on the delivery of their bill, for 
 fear if distribution were passed first their bill would fail. As soon 
 as the bankruptcy bill was passed, Smith, of Indiana, announced 
 that the Whigs were now ready for the final vote on the distribu- 
 tion preemption bill. 
 
 Meanwhile the Democrats had been trying to defeat the force of 
 the bill, or the biU itself, by amendments, giving the money for 
 fortifications, extinguishing Indian claims, paying the public debt, 
 limiting the distribution to five years, or not distributing if it were 
 necessary to borrow money or to impose duties higher than twenty 
 per cent. The Democrats hoped, by forcing home the inexpediency 
 and bad finance of borrowing in order to distribute, ultimately to 
 defeat the bill. Woodbury wrote Van Buren, August 7 : " The Dis- 
 tribution Bill is now before us, and will be defeated, I think, imless 
 amended so as to render it quite impotent by preventing it to oper- 
 ate [sic] vmless a surplus exists in the Treasury." ^ The Whigs saw 
 clearly enough that unless a revenue bill were passed there would 
 be no hope for distribution, for there would be no money to distrib- 
 ute. Rufus Choate wrote John Davis, Julyas: "TheLand and the 
 Rev [sic] Bill we shall both either pass, or loth reject. I think . . . 
 the Rev [sic] bill is bad. . . . Still rev is wanted ... if the land bill 
 passes, is indispensable." * So the Whigs passed the revenue bill in 
 
 ' Cong. Globe, 27th Cong., ist Sess., 1347-49, 1356; New York Herald, August 2, 
 10, 16, 21, 24, 1841; Richmond Enquirer, July 8, 1842; New York Express, August 19, 
 1841; New Orleans Bee, August 30, 1841; Tyler, Tyler, 11, 151; Benton, Thirty Years' 
 View, II, 229-33. 
 
 ' Van Buren MSS. ' Davis MSS. 
 
THE WHIGS AND THE VICTORY OF 1840 lOI. 
 
 the House, and held it up in the Senate pendmg the success or de- 
 feat of distribution. 
 
 The Democrats were finally successful in their policy of empha- 
 sizing the necessity to borrow or tax in order to distribute, and " 
 several Southern Whigs decided to act with section rather than 
 with party, unless the Whig leaders would consent to an amend- 
 ment suspending distribution if tariff duties were at any time in the ' 
 future imposed above the twenty per cent level.* The Whigs car- 
 ried an adjoiurnment, and after several caucuses a Southern amend- 
 ment was agreed on which Clay was willing to accept, — namely, 
 that distribution was to be suspended if a rate of duty should be '■ 
 \ imposed contrary to the compromise act.^ The analysis of the vote 
 adding this amendment to the bill shows that it was carried by the 
 Clay Whigs uniting with the South, as against the manufacturing 
 Whigs and the Democrats.' Clay's acceptance of an amendment 
 which resulted in taking the kernel out of the bill, though surprising 
 at first sight, may be explained by his fear of Tyler's vetoing the " 
 bill * without it, and by his desire to get the bill through in any 
 form so that he could say the party measure had been passed.* It 
 is possible, also, that Clay persuaded the manufacturing and as- 
 sumption Whigs to vote for the bill with this amendment with the 
 imderstanding that distribution would be made permanent at 
 another session by repealing the suspensory clause.* 
 
 Wright's letter to Van Buren of August 22 depicts realistically 
 the difficulties of the Whigs in passing this important measure: — 
 
 "The Whigs caucus frequently, and are generally united, and 
 still when brought into action, and their knoTm causes for division 
 are pressed upon them in a way to compel action, they break and 
 fly to pieces, get angry with each other, and are forced to draw off 
 
 ' Cong. Globe, 27th Cong., ist Sess., 358-59. 
 
 ^ This was proposed by Berrien of Georgia. Ibid., 369. 
 
 ' August 23, 1841. (Ibid. See Map.) 
 
 ' Richardson, Messages and Papers, iv, 182; Address of J. Q. Adams to Constitu- 
 ents, September 17, 1842. (Pamphlet 52, Boston, 1842.) 
 
 ' New York Herald, August 26, 1841. 
 
 ' New York Express, August 25, 1841; New Orleans Bee, February 3, 1842; New 
 York Tribune, July 16, 1842; Tyler, Tyler, 11, 151; Crittenden's statement, June 24, 
 1842, Cong. Globe, 27th Cong., 2d Sess., 629. 
 
102 THE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 and caucus again ... in the State the 22 [the Democrats] have kept 
 well together . . . not a single man has required any persuasion to 
 come squarely up to every important measure. This has Hterally 
 cowed the majority. 
 
 "We have never seen so much log-rolling and lobbying and 
 caucusing and putting on the screws as we see here in the Capitol 
 every day, a vote in one House controlling a vote in the other and 
 the success or defeat of one measure in the House producing the 
 success or defeat of a different measure in the Senate, together with 
 the invariable accompanyments of voting down and reconsidera- 
 tion, and pushing forward and holding back and the like. 
 
 1 " ' has been for several days a sort of drill sergeant io this 
 
 new introduction of the tactics of legislative caucuses in the Capi- 
 tol, and lauded as the man who secured the passage of the Bank- 
 ruptcy Bill, by log-rolling over the Land Bill here, and who is to 
 secure the passage of all other measures by the same means. 
 
 "The Land Bill will, I think, pass, as the Senate adjourned on 
 Saturday to afford time to agree on an Amendment which would 
 
 secure 's ^ vote, and I am told this morning that the caucus 
 
 has decided on the form of the compromise. There may be some 
 difficulty between the two Houses about this, and some other 
 Amendments, but the caucus will arrange them at last." ' 
 
 Benton, on August 26, when the distribution-preemption bill 
 came up for final passage, made a last bitter attack,* denouncing it 
 as a stock- jobbing, tariff bill. He read an article from the New York 
 Herald which described the joy in Wall Street when the news of the 
 first vote in favor of the bill was received, and its immediate effect 
 of raising the value of state stocks in their hands. He also referred 
 to the presence of interested London capitaUsts in Washington as 
 
 ' Possibly Henderson, of Mississippi, whose vote was needed for the passage of the 
 distribution-preemption bill. 
 
 2 Probably Archer, of Virginia, who tried to add an amendment to Berrien's 
 amendment, Saturday, August 21, making the latter more explicit. Archer's amend- 
 ment was defeated, but immediately an adjournment was carried with the opponents 
 crying, "Oh for another caucus." (Cong. Globe, 26th Cong., ist Sess., 366.) On August 
 23, Berrien's amendment was offered in a re-worded form, and as such was accepted 
 by Archer {ibid, 370), who voted also for the final passage of the distribution and pre- 
 emption bill. 
 
 > Van Buren MSS. • Cong. Globe, 27th Cong., ist Sess., 387. 
 
TEE WHIGS AND THE VICTORY OF 1840 I03 
 
 indicating the nature of the bill about to pass. It was a tariff bill, 
 because, to get money to distribute, the customs duties would have 
 to be raised. Blair graphically described the situation as follows: 
 "Benton is on the floor this moment making a final and scathing 
 speech against the Land Distribution Act. He has been called to 
 order for charging fraud in the management by which certain West- 
 em members have just been drawn to its support. He goes on 
 again, merely saying that if it is unparliamentary to charge fraud 
 on members voting for the provisions with which it is acknowledged 
 they do not intend to comply, it is not unparliamentary to charge 
 fraud on the operation of their measure, and this he has made them 
 swallow.^ Archer and Rives have deserted to the Bill, and I do not 
 doubt it will pass, possibly it may be vetoed but not probably. . . . 
 It will be an ingredient of great potency in future poUtical struggles 
 and will strengthen the hands of our party." ^ 
 
 The distribution-preemption bill as amended finally passed the 
 Senate, on August 26, by the vote of 28 to 23.' All in favor were 
 Whigs, and those opposed were all Democrats except one Southern 
 Whig, Preston.* The bill passed the House by the close vote of 
 108 to 94,' though the manufacturing Whigs disliked the Southern 
 amendment. The addition of this amendment* saved the bill from 
 a possible veto by Tyler.^ 
 
 The New York Herald considered that the distribution part of' 
 the compromise bill had been passed to benefit the Whigs, as a 
 party, and to satisfy especially the pocketbooks of the stock- job- 
 bing element of the Whigs.* It characterized the land bill as a 
 
 1 Benton may have been referring here to the intention of the Whigs to expunge the 
 obnoxious suspensory clause whenever they had a majority strong enough to amend 
 the distribution act, thereby influencing the action of the Western Whigs from the 
 debtor States who had been alienated by the Southern amendment. (See Crittenden's 
 statement, Cong. Globe, 27th Cong., 2d Sess., 629.) 
 
 ' Blair to Jackson, August 26, 1841. (Jackson MSS.) 
 
 • Cong. Globe, 27th Cong., ist Sess., 388. 
 
 ♦ The Charleston Mercury, September i, 1841, assured the Washington National 
 Intelligencer that Preston would have voted yea, if his vote had been needed. 
 
 » Cong. Globe, 27th Cong., ist Sess., 407. 
 
 6 Richardson, Messages and Papers, iv, 182. 
 
 ' Blair to Jackson, August 26, 1841; Charleston Mercury, August 26, 1841. 
 
 ' August 28, 1841. 
 
 v/ 
 
104 THE INFLUENCE OF TEE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 fraud, because Clay did not deliver to the people a bill such as Jack- 
 son had vetoed, but had accepted an amendment which precluded 
 distribution without dishonest legislation.* The land bill was cer- 
 tainly a vital part of the Whig programme; its importance was 
 second only to the Bank,^ and its passage by some was regarded 
 as of even more importance than the defeat of the Bank.' If there 
 had not been a Whig majority in the extra session, the subject of 
 public lands would have gone over to the next session, when, so the 
 Whigs claimed,* the increase in the strength of the representation 
 of the West would have obtained reduction or graduation. As it 
 was, the Whigs took upon themselves the credit of having taken 
 public lands out of politics.' The Democrats, greatly stirred by the 
 ability of the Whigs to carry their solution of the land question, 
 looked forward to the next session with the hope of having the tariff 
 raised above twenty per cent and so nullifying distribution, or else 
 of repealing distribution — the "Bill of Abominations."* At all 
 events, the increasing political strength of the West, together with 
 its insistence on the rights of the pioneers, had resulted in the enact- 
 ment of permanent preemption which insured to the actual settlers 
 the preference right of purchase of one hundred and sixty acres at 
 the minimum rate. The final passage of this act, after a struggle 
 of twenty years, revealed the changing attitude toward the public 
 domain. 
 
 The Whigs certainly had not been able to utilize their victory of 
 1840 as they had anticipated. To the pioneer West they had been 
 obliged to grant permanent preemption, and to the South suspen- 
 
 » September i, 1841. 
 
 ' Maysville Eagle, September 11, 1841; Richmond Whig, September 7, 1841; New 
 York Evening Journal, September 17, 1841. 
 
 « Log Cabin, September 4, 1841; Gomiecticut Courant, September 11, 1841. 
 
 ♦ Log Cabin, September 4, 1841. 
 
 ' Frankfort CommonweaUh, September 14, 1841. 
 
 ' Hastings to Van Buren, October 23, 1841; "If we can only entirely prostrate the 
 distribution act by a repeal next Session, we can more easily deal with the other collu' 
 sive measures that have been passed upon. I say 'entirely prostrate,' for I consider it a 
 hobbling condition — as involved with the revenues and other contingencies. Benton 
 might well call it 'the bill of abominations,' for it is one of the most nefarious devices 
 ever imposed on the country, and most insulting to people's understanding." (Van 
 Buren MSS.) See also McCIellan to Van Buren, February 6, 1842. (Van Buren MSS.) 
 
TEE WHIGS AND THE VICTORY OF 1840 IO5 
 
 sion of distribution when the tariff rose above twenty per cent. As a ^ 
 result, permanent distribution had been seriously maimed; it was 
 to be entirely nulUfied in 1842 by the passage of a protective tariff. 
 
 In 1842, the financial necessity of the Government, coijbinedtw 
 with the rapid lowering of the tariff January i and July i, 1842, and 
 the proviso in the distribution-preemption bill of September, 1841, | 
 raised a complicated situation. The financial needs of the Govern- 
 ment seemed to require a tariff above the twenty per cent level. 
 This would meet the wishes of the manufacturers, but would be 
 opposed by the South and by the Western Whigs who preferred 
 distribution to a protective tariff.* The tariff men soon found that 
 they could not pass a protective tariff unless they obtained the sup- 
 port of the Western Whigs by arranging for distribution, which 
 could be done by the repeal of the suspensory clause of the distri- 
 bution act of 1841.2 But such a solution was rendered impossible 
 by the opposition of Tyler, who, in his message to Congress in 
 December, 1841, had recommended that' no increase of duties 
 should take place which would have the effect of annulling the -^ 
 distribution act of the previous session, for he declared that that 
 act would become inoperative if duties were raised above twenty 
 per cent.' 
 
 The tariff element considered that a Judicious tariff was more 
 important to the welfare of the country than distribution, and they 
 decried the resolution of the Western Whigs to Unk distribution ' 
 with the tariff, for it would surely result in the failure of both.* But 
 
 > New York Express, June 14, 1842; Charleston Mercury, June 18, 1842; New 
 York American, as quoted in Richmond Enquirer, June 21, 1842. 
 
 2 Kidaaond Enquirer, June 21, 1842; New York Journal of Commerce, Jnne 22,30, 
 1842; Boston Mercantile Advertiser, as quoted in Washington Madisonian, June 14, 
 1842. 
 
 » Richardson, Messages and Papers, iv, 82. That Tyler's attitude had a disturbing 
 influence on his relations with the Whigs is seen in Winthrop's letter to Davis, March 
 31, 1842: "The President's recommendation as to the Land Bill is not at all relished, 
 and has served only to widen the breach between him and the Whig party." (Davis 
 MSS.) March 29, 1842, Tyler sent a message to the Senate recommending the passage ^ 
 of a law suspending the distribution of the proceeds from the public lands, with the 
 view of using the money for the needs of the Treasury, or of pledging it to the redemp- 
 tion of a loan, to be obtained for the immediate wants of the Government. (Cong. 
 Globe, 27th Cong., 2d Sess., 365.) 
 
 * New York Express, June 16, 1842; Adams Memoirs, xi, 228. 
 
I06 THE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 the Western Whigs were truer to their own interests/ the needs of 
 their bankrupt States and to their leader Clay,^ than to the general 
 tarijff policy of their party. The Democrats and the South attacked 
 the Whig programme, because in it the distribution element were 
 demanding release from their part of the contract of the distribution 
 act of 1841. They insisted that, if duties were raised above twenty 
 per cent, distribution should be suspended according to the South- 
 em amendment to the distribution act, or that the distribution act 
 should be repealed. Still, they were pleased with the discord be- 
 tween the Western and Northern Whigs, hoping to benefit by their 
 friction.' Thus the influences working for and against a tariff with 
 distribution were in general the same as in 184 1, but now the tariff 
 people regarded distribution not as a lever but as a sttimbling- 
 block,* because it was endangering their interests. It is interesting 
 to note that, as in 1841, the West must be conciliated, which shows, v' 
 as all through the thirties, its growing political strength. 
 
 With the aim of putting the screws on Tyler, a new tariff bill was 
 not reported till Jime, 1842,* which gave no time * for deliberation 
 and passage before July i, when the duties were by the compromise 
 
 J ' The bankrupt States in the West needed their distribution quota to pay the inter- 
 est on their securities. (Charleston Mercury, June 30, 1842; Baltimore American, July 
 1,12, 1842; Address of Saltonstall at Whig meeting at Marlboro, October 6, 1842, Sal- 
 tonstall MSS.) 
 
 ' The opposition newspapers accused the Western Whigs of being willing to sacrifice 
 everything to the distribution policy owing to " their attachment to Mr. Clay and his 
 promotion to the Presidency." (Charleston Mercury, June 2 1 , 1842 ; see also Richmond 
 Enquirer, July 8, 1842.) 
 
 * Richmond Enquirer, June 7, 21, 1842; New York 5m«, as quoted in Richmond 
 Enquirer, June 17, 1842; Charleston Mercury, Jime 21, 1842; New York Express, June 
 14, 15, 1842; New York Courier and Enquirer, June 15, 1842. 
 
 * Hudson to Davis, May 14, 1842: "The prospect for a tariff I think is rather fair, 
 though the land distribution connected with the subject of the twenty per cent duty 
 will produce some difficulty." (Davis MSS.) 
 
 ' Clay, before his retirement, had, on March i, 1842, introduced six resolutions on 
 the tariff, one of which advocated the repeal of the suspensory clause in the distribu- 
 tion act of 1841. {Cong. Globe, 27th Cong., 2d Sess., 268.) Wright at once proposed 
 amendments which amounted to the repeal of public land distribution altogether, be- ' 
 cause the money was needed for government expenses. {Ibid., 270.) After considerable 
 discussion, Clay's resolutions and Wright's amendments were referred to their appro- 
 priate committees. {Ibid., 373.) 
 
 " Benton to Van Buren, June 8, 1842. (Van Buren MSS.) 
 
TEE WHIGS AND THE VICTORY OF 1840 I07 
 
 act to fall to the twenty per cent level. As this permanent tariff act 
 could not be passed before July i, a temporary bill was .brought in 
 to continue the duties of June i, to August i, and so furnish the 
 means of meeting the needs of the Government; and at the same 
 time a clause was inserted to override the suspensory proviso in the ^ 
 act of September, 1841. Tyler was put in a hard position by this 
 Whig maneuver, being given the choice of tariff and distribution, ■■' 
 or else no tariff at all, and consequently an empty Treasury. It is 
 clear that this provisional tariff was the result of an acting together 
 on the part of the Western and Eastern Whigs. ' It was stated by 
 some that the manufacturers wanted to test Tyler on an act con- 
 taining a tariff above twenty per cent and distribution, before 
 putting distribution into a permanent tariff bill.^ Others stated 
 that, in order to prevent a split in the Whig party, they would try 
 to pass a tariff with distribution, with the imderstanding that, if 
 Tyler vetoed it, they would then pass a tariff without the obnoxious 
 clause.' 
 
 The Democrats, the South, and the President's guard were^' 
 aroused, and opposed this proposition vigorously.'' Pickens, Wise, 
 Gushing, Proffit, and Foster "came out against it like furies." ^ 
 Jones, of Virginia, denounced the clause repealing the twenty per ^ 
 cent section of the distribution act, and called it a "breach of faith 
 on the part of the Whig party, who had yielded to the restriction in 
 the extra session and thereby had secured the passage of the land 
 bill." ^ Jones was answered by White, of Indiana, who said that the 
 friends of distribution only accepted the suspensory clause of the ~ 
 distribution act with the distinct understanding that whenever 
 the tariff came up for adjustment the xmited force of the Whig 
 party wovld repeal it. White, Stuart, of Virginia, and Garuthers, of 
 Teimessee, also defended the repeal of the twenty per cent clause by ,, 
 declaring that the compromise bill of 1833 provided for permanent 
 
 1 New York Journal of Commerce, June 22, 30, 1842. 
 J Washington Madisonian, June 14, 1842. 
 » Charleston Mercury, June 21, 1842. 
 
 « New York Courier and Enquirer, June 15, 1842; Richmond Enquirer, June 17, 
 1842. 
 ' Adams, Memoirs, xr, 173. 
 " New York Tribune, June 17, 1842. ^ 
 
I08 THE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 distribution after June 30, 1842.' Gamble, of Georgia, called for 
 the proof of this declaration,^ and Hunter, of Virginia, asserted that 
 " there were many there present who heard the debates on the com- 
 promise act, and they knew how promptly that assertion was met, 
 when it was made at the other end of the Capitol, by persons who 
 were parties to the compromise act — almost aU of whom declared 
 it was the first time they had heard of such an understanding." * 
 In spite of the opposition of the South and the Democrats, the 
 Whigs passed the provisional tariff act, on Jime 15, in the House 
 
 ■ by a vote of 116 to 103. 
 
 In the Senate, to prevent Tyler's veto which Wise intimated was 
 certainimless the proviso in the distribution act of 1841 were carried 
 out, Evans, of Maine, a friend of the bill, changed the repeal of the 
 
 , proviso to a provision postponing distribution one month, until 
 August I. This amendment, while appearing to concede, still served 
 the object of the Whigs, because the proviso would be overridden 
 after only a month's delay. Under these conditions, the biU passed 
 
 , the Senate, on June 24, by a Whig vote of 24 to 19, and the House 
 of Representatives concurred with the Senate amendment by a 
 party vote. Tyler vetoed it, because he considered it a violation of 
 
 - the distribution act of 184 1. So the plans of the Whigs were de- 
 feated by the courage of the President.^ 
 
 The Whigs were angry, and the Democrats and the South deeply 
 grateful, when they learned of Tyler's veto of the provisional tariff 
 act. The Eastern tariff Whigs now saw clearly that Tyler would 
 veto any act calling for distribution with a tariff above twenty per 
 cent, and yet their only hope for a tariff measure seemed to be in 
 continued reliance on the Western Whigs. Their plan seems to have 
 been to try Tyler once more with tariff and distribution, and then 
 to say to the Western Whigs : " We have done what we can for you ; 
 
 ' now help us to pass a Protective Tariff measure without Distribu- 
 tion." The Western Whigs continued to insist on distribution, and^ 
 
 ' Cong. Globe, 27th Cong., 2d Sess., 637, 699, 708. 
 
 2 Ibid., 636. ' Ibid., 716. 
 
 ' References on "Provisional" or "Little Tari£E" bill: Charleston Mercury, Jtine 18, 
 28, 1842; Richmond Enquirer, June 21, 1842; New York Journal of Commerce, June 
 22, 30, 1842; New York Express, June 28, 1842; New York Tribune, July 6, 7, 1842. 
 
THE WHIGS AND THE VICTORY OF 1840 I09 
 
 offered the tariff Whigs the choice of the proposed tariff and dis- 
 tribution, or a general twenty per cent level and distribution.' On " 
 the other hand, the tariff Whigs were urging on Clay the passage 
 of a reasonable tariff act without a distribution rather than to ad- ' 
 joum without any tariff at all, and they claimed the country would 
 not support Clay in his stand.^ Clay, to persuade the tariff Whigs 
 to hold true to his standard, declared that he was fighting for a 
 principle — to prevent Tyler's taking from the House of Represen- 
 tatives its most important right, taxation.' The Richmond En- 
 
 ' Morehead to Clay, July 2, 1842 : " Congress will adjourn under the most auspidous 
 circumstances. The present determination is to unite the North and South in the sup- 
 port of a good bill, saving the proceeds of the Sales of the Lands — and if Tyler vetoes 
 it, as he must, then to fall down upon a rate of duties of twenty per cent with a home 
 valuation." (Crittenden MSS.) Crittenden to Clay, July 15, 1842: "Nothing has oc- 
 curred to change or disturb my convictions — that we shall pass the permanent 
 Tariff, with a reservation of the land fund to the States, and that Tyler will veto it. 
 Clouds and darkness rest upon all beyond that. If our Tariff friends from the North 
 can be reconciled to it, we will as the last alternative, pass a bill . . . with a duty of 
 twenty per cent on the home valuation.'' (Crittenden MSS.) 
 
 * Porter to Crittenden, July 21, 1842: "The protection of our own industry, and a 
 national Bank, are the two great questions which now occupy the American mind. 
 Will the people bear the postponement of proper legislation on the first, for the sake 
 of the land bill? .1 doubt it — my doubts amount to almost convictions that they will 
 not. Their pockets and in many instances their sustenance depend on its adoption, 
 will they be willing to forego the advantages it would augur for the distant benefit they 
 would indirectly receive from the Land Bill? I fear they will not and I think it would 
 be better to postpone the distribution matter until we had less stringent times. I would 
 infinitely prefer going before the People on that question with the tariff existing than 
 to try it with the angry feelings which the event of the latter wiU inevitably excite." 
 (Crittenden MSS.) Saltonstall to Clay, July 7, 1842 : "I cannot but think it the lesser 
 evil to pass, if we are without division among ourselves, some bill, which will provide 
 for the wants of the Government and revive in some degree the prosperity of our coun- 
 try. It wiU be a bitter pill to take. It would be much more agreeable to my feelings to 
 go home at once — but could the people understand that course? Would they not be^ 
 made to think that it proceeded from an obstinate clinging to the distribution, at the 
 expense of a revenue and a tariff bill? I fear so." (Crittenden MSS.) Choate to Da- 
 vis, July 19, 1842: "I must say the Clay flag floats off pretty fair — But has this 
 people character enough to carry us through a grand campaign of electioneering on 
 mere measures — and those old high-toned measures of Bank and Lands and Conserva- 
 tism? I wholly doubt it — The last had aid from spectacle — military glory — hope — 
 fatigue — This must go on great doctrines — and civil qualifications. Is the people up 
 to that?" (Davis MSS., vi, no. 103.) 
 
 ' Clay to Crittenden, July 16, 1842: 
 
 "You ask whether there may not be danger, in the event of another veto upon the 
 permanent tariff of some of our most ardent friends of a tariff yielding the distribu- 
 
no THE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 quirer gives a good view of the situation after Tyler's veto of the 
 ' ' Little Tariff " : " The Whigs are so mad with Tyler that they refuse 
 to raise any revenue at all unless he will consent to Distribution. 
 This is being done from party motives — to break Tyler and smug- 
 gle Clay into the Presidency. Surely the prudent part of the Whig 
 party will not go to these extremes, but wiU pass a moderate Tariff 
 without Distribution." ^ Finally, the Whigs apparently got to- 
 gether in caucus and agreed to include in the permanent tariff bill 
 the distribution feature. They fvirther agreed that if Tyler vetoed 
 this, they woiild pass tariff and distribution separately.^ The tariff 
 Whigs were obhged to accept this arrangement, but they still feared 
 that after the next veto Clay and his friends would continue to 
 urge upon them adjoiimment and defiance of Tyler.' ^The tariff 
 
 tion? I hope not. Acting together in the passage of the bill; the indignation which 
 another veto will excite; the public manifestation of disapprobation of the first and 
 the still stronger diapprobation which will be exhibited of the second ... all these cir- 
 cumstances combined will, I trust, knit you together, consolidate your strength, and 
 prevent desertion. 
 
 " I think you caimot give up distribution, without a disgraceful sacrifice of 
 independence. The moral prejudice of such a surrender upon the character of 
 the party and upon our institutions would be worse than the disorder and con- 
 fusion incident to the failure to pass a Tariff. ... It would be to give up the 
 Legislative power into the hands of the President, and would expose you to the 
 scorn, contempt and derision of the People and of our opponents. . . . The oc- 
 casion calls for the greatest firmness. And do^not apprehend that the people will 
 desert you, or take part with Mr. Tyler. They will do no such thiilg^" (Crit- 
 tenden MSS.) 
 
 » July 8, 1842. 
 
 2 Letter to the New York Union: "I had a peep into another caucus the other 
 evening. Several meetings took place before a final result was reached. . . . Finally 
 the following was unanimously agreed upon. The Clay Whigs from Kentucky, Ten- 
 nessee, Indiana, Ohio, and Louisiana proposed that if the tariff men of the East and 
 North would consent to pass the big tariff, with a provision to repeal the limitation in 
 the Land Bill and force the President to another veto, then they would consent to pass 
 another bill without distribution. The proposition succeeded by a majority vote, and 
 finally was unanimously agreed to." (As quoted in Boston Courier, August 11, 1842.) 
 
 ' Sargent to Clay, August 6, 1842: "It is not easy to say what Congress will do, 
 should the bill be vetoed, but I think they would pass no other. Letters from all quar- 
 ters of the country speak in a firm and manly tone. Most of them advise no flinching, 
 no compromise, — no additional bill. Stevens writing to Jas. Cooper says . . . 'Die 
 with the land bill rather than record your vote in submission to a tyrant. I shall suffer 
 much for want of a tariff, but I had rather be a bankrupt than a slave.' " (Crittenden 
 MSS.) 
 
THE WHIGS AND THE VICTORY OF 1840 III 
 
 distribution act passed the House and Senate by a party vote, 
 and again Tyler vetoed it as was expected. ' 
 
 There were three possibilities of Whig action after the second 
 veto: First, a tariff act with a general twenty per cent level, with 
 distribution, but the tariff East was hostile; second, a protective 
 tariff without distribution, but the Western Whigs opposed; and 
 third, adherence to distribution or adjournment without action.^ 
 With the view of getting the support of the country against Tyler's 
 destruction of the revenue bills, Clay pushed the third as a matter 
 of constitutional principle,' and influenced Adams to act as leader 
 in the House. He soon found, however, that he had overreached 
 himself, and if he continued in his course, the Whig party would 
 spUt and the country as a whole woiild not support him in his per- 
 sonal policy. The Eastern manufacturers did not intend to sacrifice 
 their interests to loyalty to their party leader, nor would the coun- 
 try be content to suffer financial depression because of Clay's 
 political ambition.* 
 
 When the Democrats learned of Clay's plan, they nianeuvered to 
 benefit by the situation. Calhoun approached the Eastern Whigs 
 and promised support for a moderate tariff act without distribution. 
 Van Buren, not to be outdone by Calhoun, pledged the votes of his 
 
 ' New York, Tribune, July 19, 1842; New York Express, July 19, August 8, 1842; 
 New York Journal of Commerce, July 22, 1842; Salem Gazette, July 22, 1842. 
 
 2 Crittenden to Harlan, August 16, 1842. (Crittenden MSS.) 
 
 ' Clay to Clayton, August 8, 1842: "My information is that Tyler will veto the 
 permanent Tariff. In that event I sincerely hope that the Land Measure will not be 
 sacrificed. Important as a Tariff imdoubtedly is, it dwindles into insignificance when 
 compared with the independence of the House of Representatives on a Revenue Bill. 
 I think you and all our prominent friends ought to strengthen the Whigs in Congress 
 as much as possible. They ought at all hazards to insist upon the distribution of the 
 Land Fund." (Clayton MSS.) McClellan to Van Buren, August 15, 1842: "The poor 
 Whigs are in much excitement, and have been in caucus every day since Veto No. 4 was 
 delivered. . . . A respectable minority are for passing a tariff bill and suspending distri- 
 bution till Jan. I, 1845. The leaders and a majority are for adjourning instanter and 
 starving the Capt. into submission." (Van Buren MSS.) And again, on August 23, 
 1842: "The Clay leaders, especially Crittenden in the Senate and Adams in the House 
 — were determined to keep it [tariff an open question for agitation in the coming 
 election." (Van Buren MSS.) 
 
 * New York Journal of Commerce, August 30, 1842; Richmond Enquirer, July s, 
 August 12, 1842; T. Clas^ton to J. M. Clas^ton, August 13, 1842, Clayton MSS.; 
 White to Letcher, July 11, 1842, Crittenden MSS.; Adams, Memoirs, xi, 228. 
 
112 THE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 friends to the same end.* When Clay saw that he would lose the 
 Eastern Whigs by persisting in his course, he changed his policy and 
 agreed to support a tariff measure without distribution.* Calhoun 
 immediately backed water, and returned to his former free-trade 
 attitude.* Van Buren tried to be cautious, because he did not want 
 
 1 C. Johnson to J. K. Polk, August 28, 1842: "I informed you of the irreconcilable 
 squabble between the Tariff^ Whigs and the Distribution Whigs. The Democrats and 
 Distribution Whigs voted foradjoununent on the 22d. We should have adjourned that 
 day without a TarifiE and without a Whig reconciliation but alas — the squabble erected 
 hopes among our leaders of using the Tariff Whigs in the Presidential Election for 
 their own benefit, and at expense of other Democrats. The Tariff Whigs were in mar- 
 ket put up to highest bidder. IngersoU's Amendment drawn up by Buchanan who is 
 thought by many to represent J. C. C, proposed to take the Tariff of 1840 — a pretty 
 fair bid — equal at least to the Tariff of 1832 — it seemed for a while that it would 
 take but when it came to be voted on it was too low for tariff men and too high for 
 Anti-tariff but many of our Van Buren men would not be outbid and was [sic] disposed 
 to give no advantage to other branch of Democrats it was even hinted that J. C. C. 
 would vote for it as a temporary measure — it was soon given out that Wright would 
 go for it too and such things were said of Benton . . . tliis state of things seemed likely 
 to secure the Tariff Whigs to others than the great champion Clay and his friends set 
 to work and bid up at last the big Tariff without distribution upon condition that a 
 separate distribution bill should be sent to the Capt. for another veto — this was of 
 course accepted, having that confidence in each other which exists among pickpockets, 
 when their union is necessary for their own preservation or being identical in principle, 
 having no other than to secure money on one side and poUtical promotion on other 
 but all could not be lost in that way. Van's friends would not be outbid, so the New 
 York Democrats in the House (many of them) and Wright in Senate gave way and 
 agreed to same bid while Buchanan and Sturgeon and Ruel Williams united. I have no 
 doubt the Whigs were detailed in both so as just to make enough to pass the Bill, get- 
 ting as many of Van's friends with them as possible." (Polk MSS.) H. L. Tumey 
 wrote Polk, September 4, 1842: " Calhoun and his friends are making it the occasion of 
 denouncing Van Buren and his friends as high tariff men in order to thrust him Cal- • 
 houn at the head of the party. The truth of this matter is that while the Clay wing of 
 the Whig party were opposing the tariff without distribution and therefore producing 
 a division between the distribution and tariff men which threatened to prove fatal to 
 the Whig party, Calhoun and his friends with a view no doubt of securing the support 
 of the Northern Federalists were making propositions of compromise of a tariff, em- 
 bracing all the objectionable principles in the Bill which are to be found in the bill that 
 finally passed. Wright discovered this movement of Calhoun and resolved not to be 
 outbid. So he went to work in the same way and committed himself and his friends 
 in the House for the bill, the Clay men however seeing what would inevitably be the 
 result of their course that it would effectually destroy Clay — finally gave their sup- 
 port to the measure. As soon as this was done and the Whig party thereby reunited, 
 Calhoun returns to his free trade doctoring and raises the hue and cry against Van, 
 Wright etc. and are now laboring to rise upon their downfall when in fact he is guilty 
 of the same offence, except he displaid more judgment in his retreat from a measure 
 
THE WHIGS AND THE VICTORY OF 1840 II3 
 
 the tariff question by any chance to be involved in the fall campaign ; 
 he saw to it that enough Democrats, in both the Senate and House 
 of Representatives, voted for the moderate tariff without distribu- 
 tion, so that the coimtry might be assured of a revenue measure.' " 
 His fears were really groundless, because if the tariff bill had not 
 been carried, the Whigs would have reconsidered and more Whigs 
 would have voted in favor.^ As a result, tariff without distribution 
 /'passed both House and Senate, the Western Whigs voting against, '^ 
 but enough Whigs voting in favor to carry the bill. A bill for dis- 
 tribution, even when the tariff was above twenty per cent, was 
 passed as a separate measure, and was pocketed by Tyler. Thus 
 the plans of the Whigs, who had expected to benefit by their victory 
 of 1840, had been shattered by tariff sectionalism. 
 
 which he would have doubtless supported but for the reunion of the Whigs." (Polk 
 MSS.) 
 
 ' New York Tribune, August 29, 1842; Richmond Enquirer, September 2, 1842; 
 New York Journal of Commerce, August 30, 1842. 
 
 ' "They could have had easily 8 or 10 majority in either House if desirable." (C. 
 Johnson to J. K. Polk, August 28, 1842, Polk MSS.) Richmond Enquirer, August 30, 
 1842; New York Tribune, August 29, 1842; New York Journal of Commerce, August 
 30, 1842. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 CONCLUSION 
 
 With the growth of sections having conflicting economic inter- 
 ests, the disposition of the public lands became a subject for sec- 
 tional alliances and political bargainings. Changes in the adminis- 
 tration of the pubhc domain in accordance with the desires of the 
 pioneer West, of labor, and of poHtical idealists could be obtained 
 only by the alliance of these interests with other factors for mutual 
 benefit. Thus the West and the South acted together from 1830 to 
 1832, upon the common basis of opposition to the Eastern plan for 
 the distribution of the proceeds of the pubHc lands, which would 
 result in the high price of land and the maintenance of a protective 
 tariff, both antagonistic to the economic development of the two 
 sections. But the West, failing to obtain any positive assistance 
 from its alliance with the South, turned to the Administration 
 party, and was saved from Clay's public land distribution bill by 
 Jackson's pocket veto in March, 1833. During the period of surplus 
 the plans of the West did not progress, but after the panic of 1837 
 the desire of Van Buren to establish the independent Treasury and 
 the demands of the Loco Focos for freer access to the public domain 
 turned the tide, and temporary preemption bills were passed in 
 1838 and 1840. In 1840, the West, as the section which was grow- 
 ing most rapidly in population and political strength, held the bal- 
 ance of power, and was appealed to by Calhoun and the South, and 
 the two national party leaders. Van Buren and Clay. The interests 
 of the settler West were Jeopardized by Clay's interpretation of the 
 Whig victory to mean a national indorsement of the distribution 
 of the proceeds of public lands; but the hostility of the low-tariff 
 South to this measure and the Democratic majority in the Senate, 
 which remained in office until March 4, 1841, served the West by 
 preventing the passage of a distribution bill. In the extra session a 
 compromise measure was carried in which the Whigs were obliged 
 to concede permanent preemption, to win the Western element of 
 
CONCLUSION 115 
 
 their party, and the suspension of distribution whenever the tariff 
 should rise above twenty per cent, to conciliate the anti-tariff South. 
 The settler West, in 1842, found a new ally in John Tyler, whose 
 ancestors in low-country Virginia had been the bitter enemies of 
 the West in the colonial period. His vetoes of tariff bills, repealing 
 the suspensory clause of the distribution act of 1841, obliged the 
 Western Whigs to give up their plan of combining distribution 
 with a high tariff. 
 
 The result of the struggle of sections and parties over the dispo- 
 sition of the public lands from 1828 to 1842 had really been a 
 compromise by which the North and South Atlantic States had 
 maintained sialus quo, while the West had obtained permanent 
 preemption. The opposition of the North Atlantic section to the 
 reduction of the price of the public lands had prevailed, and the 
 South had succeeded in preventing a higher tariff, which would have 
 resulted from the distribution of the proceeds of the public lands. 
 
 The question arises, What in the light of evidence would have 
 been the wise policy? A really scientific law could not have been 
 enacted, for it would have been opposed by those sections which 
 regarded it as harmful to their interests. Nor could a national party 
 have passed it, because its members would have been more loyal 
 to section than to party. Furthermore, individualism, the prevail- 
 ing American force at that time, would have interposed an insup- 
 erable obstacle. Custom would have modified a scientific law, even 
 if it had been enacted. The wise policy would have been a compro- 
 mise, as ever the only solution in case of distinct clashes of opinion 
 and interest. The leaders of each section might have conferred and 
 agreed on a comprehensive plan which, conceding something to each 
 section, would have been accepted by all. For example, a low rev- 
 enue tariff, with high duties on luxuries and such duties on manufac- 
 tured articles as would afford a reasonable profit; donation of land 
 to settlers, the sale of land to others^ and the application of the net 
 income to general expenses or to internal improvements, might have 
 served as a basis for such a compromise. 
 
 Public lands persisted after 1842 as both a party and sectional 
 question. The manufacturers and the financial interests still urged ' 
 distribution, while the pioneer West demanded reduction and 
 
Il6 THE INFLUENCE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 
 
 cession and Joined with the labor element in advocating donation. 
 Distribution was supported by the Whigs in 1844 and opposed by 
 the Democrats; but the annexation of Texas was the leading issue 
 of this campaign. From 1828 to 1842 the South hadjregarded the 
 pubUc lands in reference to alow tariff,,.but_SQQn_after 1842 her | 
 attitude on the land question was determined by her desire for the 
 extension of slavery. The close connection of these two subjects 
 became more evident in 1848, when the Free Soil party included in 
 their platform free grants to actual settlers. Thus it was impossible 
 for the free pioneer West, though aided by the growing labor 
 movement and the antislavery forces, to obtain the passage of the 
 Homestead Act before the outbreak of the Civil War. 
 Tf The Western problem of the public lands, coupled with the 
 growing political power of that section, had affected other ec- 
 onomic legislation. During the years 1828-1833 and 1840-1842, 
 the Clay party had tried to use public lands as a stepping-stone to 
 a high tariff, but owing to sectional opposition it had proved a 
 stumbling-block. The Southern and Western alKanceof 1830-1832 
 and the combined opposition of the pioneer West, the Western dis- 
 tribution Whigs, and the low-tariff South, headed by Tyler, almost 
 shattered the protective tariff of 1842 and the Whig party. Public 
 lands and internal improvements were also closely associated. 
 Lands had been given to the States to build roads and canals in the 
 twenties, and after Jackson's Maysville veto of 1830 the interested 
 parties turned to Clay's distribution plan as a practical means of 
 furthering their interests. This is seen especially in the agitation 
 by the debtor States for distribution from 1840 to 1842. 
 
 During Van Buren's Administration the public land question 
 was also linked with the independent Treasury. The success of that 
 measure in 1840 was due in part to the support of the pioneer West 
 in return for Van Buren's Uberal public land pohcy. 
 ■■. The question affected not only economic measures, but also the 
 political fortunes of sectional presidential candidates. Adams's 
 policy for the disposition of the public domain, creating a fund from 
 the sale of lands for national internal improvements, was that of a 
 conservative, European administrator, and so did not appeal to a 
 section trying to build up a self-sustaining landholding democracy. 
 
CONCLUSION 117 
 
 The antagonism between the manufacturing class and the Western 
 pioneers stood in the way of Webster's advancement. Clay, in an 
 awkward position between the public land West and the tariff East, 
 tried to keep both sections true to him by a compromise, distribut- 
 ing the proceeds from the public lands for internal improvements" 
 and giving a bonus to the West. He failed to get the allegiance of 
 the pioneer West, and so had to give way to Harrison. Van Buren's 
 ambiguous position, coupled with the friendship of Jackson and a 
 strong Eastern support, obtained for him the presidency. Calhoun 
 was preeminently a sectional leader, but he tried to win Western 
 support by his proposal to cede the lands to the States in which 
 they lay, later adding graduation and preemption. In spite of these 
 concessions Calhoun's ambition was never satisfied, owing to the 
 opposition of the populous North Atlantic States and the old West 
 led by Clay and Van Buren. Thus, during the period of this study, 
 the public land question exercised a wide influence upon other 
 legislation and on the political careers of sectional and party 
 leaders. 
 
 THE END 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 The following list of secondary works and sources contains only those 
 which were of actual use in the preparation of this essay. 
 
 General Works 
 
 Those containing extracts of value are: W. MacDonald, Jachsonian 
 Democracy, 1829-37 (American Nation Series, vol. xv), New York, 
 1906; J. B.McMaster, .4 History oj the People of the United States, 8 vols.. 
 New York, 1883-1913; J. Schouler, History of the United States under 
 the Constitution, revised edition, 6 vols.. New York, 1894-99; F. J. 
 Turner, Rise of the New West, 1819-29 (American Nation Series, vol. 
 xiv). New York, 1906; W. Wilson, Division and Reunion, 1829-1909, 
 New York, 19 12. 
 
 Special Works 
 
 Ballagh, J. C. Tariff and Public Lands. (Aimual Report of American 
 Historical Association, 1898, p. 235.) Suggestive for financial side. 
 
 Ballagh, J. C. Introduction to Southern Economic History: The Land 
 System. (Annual Report of American Historical Association, 1897, 
 
 lOI.) 
 
 Bibliographical Congressional Directory, i 774-1903. (House 
 
 Docxmients, S7th Congress, 2d Session, no. 458.) Washington, 1903. 
 
 Valuable for party affiliations. 
 Bourne, E. G. History of Surplus Revenue of 1837. New York, 1885. 
 
 Of value in obtaining a preliminary knowledge of the field. 
 Colgrove, K. W. Congress and the Pioneers, 1820-50. {Iowa Journal 
 
 of History and Politics, vol. ix, p. 196.) Suggestive. 
 Commons, J. R. Horace Greeley and the Working-Class Origins of the 
 
 Republican Party. (Political Science Quarterly, vol. xxrv, p. 468.) 
 Dewey, D. R. Financial History of the United States. New York, 1909. 
 Edwards, N. W. History of Illinois from 1778 to 18 jj, and Life and 
 
 Times of Ninian Edwards. Springfield, 111., 1870. Contains valuable 
 
 material for the relations between Edwards and Calhoim. 
 Fish, C. R. The Civil Service and the Patronage. (Harvard Historical 
 
 Studies, vol. xi.) New York, 1905. 
 
120 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Ford, A. C. Colonial Precedents of Our National Land System, etc., as it 
 existed in 1800. (Bulletin of the Univeristy of Wisconsin, History 
 Series, vol. n, no. 2.) Madison, igio. 
 
 Garnett, R. Edward Gibbon Wakefield, and Colonization of South Aus- 
 tralia and New Zealand. London, 1898. 
 
 Hill, R. T. Public Domain and Democracy. (Columbia Studies, vol. 
 xxxvin.) New York, 1910. 
 
 Hill, H. A. Memoirs of Abbott Lawrence. Boston, 1883. 
 
 Houston, D. F. A Critical Study of Nullification in South Carolina. 
 (Harvard Historical Studies, vol. in.) New York, 1896. 
 
 LoRiA, A. The Economic Foundation of Society. London, 1899. 
 7 Lynch, W. O. J. C. Calhoun and Political Parties. (A.M. Thesis, Uni- 
 versity of Wisconsin, 1908.) 
 
 Mathews, L. K. The Expansion of New England. Boston, 1909. 
 
 Meigs, W. M. Life of Thomas Hart Benton. Philadelphia, 1904. 
 ' Robinson, E. E. Origin of the Whig Party. (A.M. Thesis, University 
 
 of Wisconsin, 1910.) 
 — Sanborn, J. B. Political Aspects of Homestead Legislation. (American 
 
 Historical Review, vol. VI, p. 19.) Suggestive. 
 P^SjATO, S. History of the Land Question in the United States. (Johns Hop- 
 kins University Studies, vol. iv. 1886.) Helpful in obtaining an ac- 
 quaintance with the subject. 
 
 SioussAT, St. G. L. Tennessee Politics in the Jackson Period. {American 
 Historical Review, vol. xrv, p. 54.) 
 
 Stanwood, E. American Tariff Controversies in the igth Century. 
 2 vols. Boston, 1903. 
 
 Sumner, W. G. Andrew Jackson. (American Statesmen Series.) Re- 
 vised edition, Boston, 1900. 
 
 Taussig, F.W. Tariff History of the United States. New York, 1910. 
 
 Treat, P. J. The National Land System, 1785-1820. New York, 1910. 
 
 Wakefield, E. G. England and America. A Comparison of the Social 
 and Political State of Both Nations. 2 vols. New York, 1834. 
 
 Contemporary Writings 
 
 Adams, J. Q. Memoirs, comprising parts of his Diary from I^p5 to 1848. 
 
 12 vols. Philadelphia, 1874-77. Suggestive. 
 > Adams, J. Q. Address to his Constituents, September 17, 1842. Boston, 
 
 1842. (Pamphlet. Boston Public Library.) Valuable. 
 Benton, T. H. Thirty Years' View; or, a History of the Working of the 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 121 
 
 American Government for Thirty Years, from 1820-1850. 2 vols. 
 
 New York, 1854-56. 
 Byrdsall, F. The History of the Loco-foco, or Equal Rights Party; Its 
 
 Movements, Conventions, and Proceedings. New York, 1842. Helpful. 
 Calhoun, J. C. Correspondence. (Annual Report, American Historical 
 
 Association, 1899, vol. n.) Washington, 1900. Valuable. 
 Chevalier, M. Society, Manners, and Politics in the United States; 
 
 Being a Series of Letters on North America. Boston, 1839. 
 Commons, J. R., and others, editors. Documentary History of American 
 
 Industrial Society. 10 vols. Cleveland, 1 909-11. Valuable. 
 Essex County National Republican Convention. Address to the Elect- 
 
 orsofEssexCounty,lAzxch.i?),i?iyy. (Pamphlet. Essexinstitute, Salem.) 
 Massachusetts Defrauded in Relation to the Public Lands. Published by 
 
 the Whig RepubUcan Association, Boston, 1840. (Pamphlet. Essex 
 
 Institute, Salem.) Valuable. 
 Massachusetts Historical Society. Proceedings, 3d Series, vol. 
 
 n. Valuable for letters of George Bancroft to Van Buren. 
 RoBBiNS, A., and Burgess, T. Address to Citizens of Rhode Island. 
 
 Providence, 1832. (Pamphlet. University of Wisconsin Library.) 
 
 Suggestive. 
 Tyler, L. G. The Letters and Times of the Tylers. 2 vols. Richmond, 
 
 1884-96. 
 Van Tyne, C. H. Letters of Webster. New York, 1902. 
 Verplanck, W. C. Political Mirror of Jacksomsm. New York, 1835. 
 Washbuene, E. B., editor. The Edwards Papers; Being a Portion of the 
 
 Collection of the Letters, Papers, and Manuscripts of Ninian Edwards. 
 (Chicago Historical Society Collections, vol. m.) Chicago, 1884. 
 
 Valuable. 
 Webster, D. Speech at Merchants Meeting. New York, September 28, 
 
 1840. (Pamphlet. Essex Institute, Salem.) Of value. 
 Whig Almanac, 1838 to 1842. Valuable for party affiHations. 
 
 Contemporary Newspapers 
 
 The newspapers of the period contaui a wealth of material both on 
 the sectional and party aspects of the land question. The best collec- 
 tion was in the Library of Congress. Important files were found in the 
 collections of the University of Wisconsin, the Boston and New York 
 Public Libraries, the Essex Institute at Salem, the Boston Athenaeum, 
 and the American Antiquarian Society at Worcester. 
 
122 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 The following newspapers have been used for the whole period: — 
 Albany Argus. Democratic. Valuable. 
 Alexandria Gazette. Democratic. 
 
 Boston Atlas. Organ of the Whig party of New England. 
 Boston Daily Advertiser. Whig. 
 Boston Daily Courier. Whig. More valuable than the Advertiser for 
 
 Editorials and news from Washington. 
 Charleston Courier. Democratic. Of Httle importance. 
 Charleston Mercury. Important as Calhoun's organ, and useful for 
 
 quotations from other papers. 
 Columbian Centinel, Boston. Merged in Boston Daily Advertiser, 1840. 
 
 Whig. 
 Frankfort Argus. Democratic. 
 Hartford Times. Democratic. Of little importance. 
 Maysville Eagle. (In collection of Colonel Reuben Durrett, Louisville, 
 
 Kentucky.) Whig. 
 Missouri Argus, St. Louis. Important as Benton's organ. 
 National Intelligencer, Washington. Clay's Organ. Useful for quota- 
 tions from other papers. 
 New Hampshire Patriot. Concord. Most influential Democratic paper 
 
 in New England. 
 New York American. Whig. 
 New York Courier and Enquirer. Leading Whig paper after 1834. 
 
 Valuable. 
 New York Evening Post. Democratic. Valuable. 
 New York Morning Express. Whig. Important. 
 Niles's Register, Baltimore. Valuable for quotations from other papers. 
 Richmond Enquirer. Edited by Thomas Ritchie. Valuable as organ of 
 
 Virginia Democrats. 
 United States Telegraph, Washington. Its editor and publisher was 
 
 General Duff Green. It was the oflScial organ of Jackson's party 
 
 until Jackson's break with Calhoun; then it became Calhoun's organ. 
 Washington Globe. Organ of Jackson's party after Jackson's break 
 
 with Calhoun. 
 
 For the relation of tariff and public lands, the following newspapers 
 have been used: — 
 Annapolis Republican. Democratic. 
 Baltimore American. Whig. 
 Boston Advocate. Democratic. Of slight value. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 122, 
 
 Boston Statesman. Democratic. Valuable. 
 
 Detroit Democratic Free Press. Democratic. 
 
 Detroit Journal and Michigan Advertiser. Whig. 
 
 Frankfort Commonwealth. Whig. 
 
 Independent Chronicle, Boston. Whig. 
 
 Indiana State Journal. Whig. 
 
 Log Cabin, New York. Whig. 
 
 Louisville Public Advertiser. Democratic. 
 
 Lowell Journal. Whig. 
 
 Madisonian, Washington. Whig in 1841, but followed Tyler when he 
 
 broke with that party. 
 Massachusetts Spy, Worcester. Whig. Has good quotations. 
 Mobile Daily Register. Democratic. 
 New England Palladium, Boston. Whig. 
 New Orleans Bee. Whig. 
 New York Daily Advertiser. Whig. 
 New York Evening Journal. Whig. 
 New York Herald. Favored Tyler. 
 New York Journal of Commerce. Democratic. 
 Vandalia Whig and Illinois Intelligencer. Whig. 
 
 The following newspapers were useful for the chapter on "Surplus 
 and Panic": — 
 
 Arkansas Gazette, Little Rock. Democratic. 
 Boston Daily Morning Post. Democratic. 
 Boston Mercantile Journal. Whig. 
 Detroit Democratic Free Press. Democratic. 
 Illinois State Register and People's Advocate, Vandalia. Democratic. 
 Jackson Mississippian. Democratic. Of slight value. i>«Biao«» . 
 New York Commercial Advertiser. Whig. 
 New York Daily Advertiser. Whig. 
 Salem Gazette. Whig. 
 Washington Reformer. Replaces Telegraph as Calhoun's organ. 
 
 For the election of 1840 good material was found in the following 
 newspapers: — 
 Albany Jeffersonian. Whig. 
 Arkansas Gazette, Little Rock. Democratic. 
 Connecticut Courant. Whig. 
 Detroit Democratic Free Press. Democratic. 
 
124 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Extra Globe, Washington. Valuable. 
 
 Green County Torchlight, Xenia, Ohio. Whig. 
 
 Niles (Michigan) Intelligencer. Democratic. 
 
 Northwestern Gazette and Galena Advertiser. Whig. 
 
 Rough Hewer, Albany. Democratic. 
 
 Salem Gazette. Whig. 
 
 The Axe, Cleveland. Whig. 
 
 Public Documents 
 
 Annals of the Congress of the United States, 1780-1824. 42 vols. Wash- 
 ington, 1834-56. 
 
 Register of Debates in Congress, 1823-37. 29 vols. Washington, 1825-37. 
 
 Congressional Globe, containing the Debates and Proceedings. 1833-73. 
 108 vols. Washington, 1834-73. 
 
 Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States. Aimual vol- 
 times since 1789. Philadelphia and Washington. 
 
 Journal of the Senate of the United States. Annual volumes since 1789. 
 Philadelphia and Washington. 
 
 American State Papers. Public Lands. 
 
 Senate Documents, 1817-49. 
 
 House Reports of Committees, 1819 to 1914. 
 
 BUls and Resolutions of House and Senate. 
 
 Illinois General Assembly. Journals, 1828-29, 1830-31. 
 
 Donaldson, Thomas. The Public Domain, 3d edition. (House Miscel- 
 laneous Documents, 47th Cong., 2d Sess. no. 45, part 4.) Washington. 
 1884. 
 
 Richardson, J. D. Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presi- 
 dents. (House Miscellaneous Documents, S3d Cong., 2d Sess., no. 
 210.) 1789-1898. 10 vols. Washington, 1896-99. 
 
 Manuscript Sources 
 
 Library of Congress. Much of the material for this essay was found 
 in the manuscript collections here. Of chief importance was the rich 
 collection of Van Buren manuscripts, containing first drafts of im- 
 portant vetoes, a valuable series of nearly three hundred letters be-' 
 tween Jackson and Van Buren, and many letters from other men on 
 land, labor and poUtics. Second in importance were the Jackson 
 manuscripts, rich in western material. Of less importance, but still 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 25 
 
 illuminating, were the unpublished letters of Calhoun, Polk, Critten- 
 den, Edwards, Webster and Galloway. 
 
 American Antiquarian Society, Worcester. The Journal of John 
 Davis in the Davis Manuscripts proved valuable in furnishing mate- 
 rial on the New England point of view. 
 
 Ogg, F. a. Collection of Webster Manuscripts. Valuable. 
 
 Essex Institute, Salem. Saltonstall papers. 
 
 Treasury Department, Washington. Correspondence of the General 
 Land Office. Suggestive. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Adams, J. Q., views of, on public lands, 3- 
 4; comparison with Wakefield's plans, 
 4; concern of, over ideas of Ninian Ed- 
 wards, 17-18; recognition of South and 
 West alliance, 33; explanation of dis- 
 tribution provision of Compromise Act, 
 46; fearsVanBuren'slandpolicy, 66, 70. 
 
 American system, condemned by South, 
 25; connection with .public lands, 35. 
 See Clay. 
 
 Assumption of State debts, agitated by 
 Whigs, 75, 76; denied, 76, 78, 80; objec- 
 tions of settler West to, 78; Benton's 
 resolutions against, 78-82; Grundy's 
 report, 79-80; Democratic accusation 
 that Whigs were planning, 79-81; at- 
 tempt of Clay to postpone, 82; South 
 aroused against, 82. See State stocks. 
 Distribution (1840-42). 
 
 Baring Bros.' circular (1839), 75, 77. 79, 
 80, 89. 
 
 Benton, T. H., champion of settler West, 
 6, 28, 78, 92, and note i; attack on 
 Foot's resolution, 28, 29; opposes dis- 
 tribution, 39, 102-03; opposes cession 
 amendment to land bill, 61; favors ces- 
 sion bill, 62; possible influence on Van 
 Buren, 68; and assumption, 78-82. See 
 Preemption, Log Cabin Bill, Gradua- 
 tion, South and West alliance. 
 
 Bibb's resolution, on reference to Com- 
 mittee on Manufactures of tariff and 
 public-land questions, 34; vote on, ana- 
 lyzed, 3S, note 2, 36. 
 
 Blair, F. P., SS, 88, 91, 95. 
 
 Calhoun, J. C, as Southern leader, 12, 
 note I, 18, 60, 92, 117; and tariff, 12, 
 note 1, 44, 47, 48, 80, III, 112, and note 
 i; and States' rights, 12, 19-20, 60; and 
 Duff Green, 13, note 2, 21, 22; and 
 Ninian Edwards, 18-21; and Van Bu- 
 ren, 22, 23, 84-85; and third party, 30, 
 35, note 2, 43, 47, so; and graduation 
 and preemption, 34, 43, 71, 83; and dis- 
 tribution, 39, 43, 47, so, and note i, 80, 
 
 note 4, 98; and Clay, 44-47; reasons for 
 championing cession, 58-60; political 
 character of public-land policy of, 60- 
 61, 62-63, 84-85, 92, and note i, 117. 
 See Land Bill of 1837, South and West 
 alliance. 
 
 Calhoun's cession plan : provisions of 
 amendment, 581 S9; probable motive, 
 60; defeated in Senate, 62; cession 
 bill: introduced (1837), 62, tabled, 63; 
 political character of, 62-63; vote an- 
 alyzed, 63-64; results, 64; (1838), 72; 
 reintroduced (1840), 84; political views 
 of, 84-86; terms, 84, note 4; as amend- 
 ment to Log Cabin Bill (1841), 89; lost, 
 92; vote analyzed, 92-93. See Cession 
 of public lands to States. 
 
 Cession of public land to States, early sup- 
 porters, 7, 16, 17, 41, 42, 59; opposition 
 of Clay, 17, 62; referred to Committee 
 on Manufactures, 34. See Calhoun's 
 cession plan. 
 
 Clay, Henry, opposes Western land plans, 
 17, 36-37, 62, 71, 72-73, 82, 87, 91; and 
 tariff, 17, 34-36, 44-47, 106, note 5; 
 108-13; champions distribution, 36-37, 
 43, 48, 49, 82, 109, note 3, in; and the 
 moneyed element, 38, 92, 94, 98; politi- 
 cal character of land policy of, 38, 40, 
 S0-51, 92, note I, 117; and Calhoun, 
 44-48, 62-63; leader of Whig party, 64, 
 96-97; and Western distribution Whigs, 
 105-06, 110-12. See Whigs, Distribu- 
 tion, Rives's bill. For action of Clay's 
 party before 1836, see Bibb's resolution, 
 Himt's resolution, votes on Distribu- 
 tion, and Graduation. 
 
 Clayton, J. M., evidence of, on connection 
 of distribution and compromise tariff, 
 45-46. 
 
 Compromise tariff. See Tariff. 
 
 Crittenden, J. J. See Distribution resolu- 
 tion (1840-41). 
 
 Davis, John, views of, on public lands, 27, 
 note 4. 
 
128 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Democrats, favor Western land plans, 29, 
 41-42, 57, 89; have majority in Senate, 
 71, 96; oppose distribution, 98, 108. See 
 votes on Distribution, Graduation, Pre- 
 emption, Tariff, Independent Treasury, 
 Land Bill of 1837, Assumption, Rives's 
 bill, Bibb's resolution; see also Van Bu- 
 ren, Jackson, Benton. 
 
 Deposit Act (1836), 51; attempt to estend, 
 S4, and note 3. 
 
 Distribution, of proceeds of public-land 
 sales, sectional significance, 5-6, 7, 24, 
 25, 38, 39; connection with tariff, 24-25, 
 29, 38-39. 44, 47, 80, 91, 92, 98, 101-03, 
 105-11; remedy for surplus, 49, S4; 
 connection with assumption, 76, 81; 
 proposed bills, s; Hunt's resolution, 23- 
 24; vote analyzed, 25-26; Clay's bill 
 (1832), 37, reference of, to Committee 
 on Public Lands, 39; passes Senate, 39; 
 vote analyzed, 39, note 8, 40 ; course 
 in 1833-35, 39, note 2 ; postponed in 
 House, 40 ; vote analyzed, 40; note 2; 
 passes Senate (1833), 43 ; vote an- 
 alyzed, 43; passes House, 47; vote an- 
 alyzed, 47; pocketed by Jackson, 47, 
 and note s; passes Senate (1836), 50; 
 analyzed, 50; tabled in House, 50; vote 
 analyzed, 50, note 6; introduced (Dec, 
 1836), 54, note 2; distribution amend- 
 ment to graduation bill lost (1839), 73; 
 Crittenden's resolution (1840), 81; lost, 
 82; Crittenden's amendment to Log 
 Cabin Bill (1841), 88-89; lost, 92; vote 
 analyzed, 92-93; Crittenden reintro- 
 duces amendment, 93; lost, 93; jdis- 
 tribution-preemption Bill (1841), party 
 measure, 97; sectional and party views 
 on, 97-98; passes House, 99; connec- 
 tion with bankruptcy bill, 99-100; 
 opposition of Southern Whigs, 101; 
 Southern amendment, 101 ; passes Sen- 
 ate and House, 103; importance of pas- 
 sage, 104; desire of Western Whigs for 
 (1842), 105 ; included in provisional 
 tariff bill, 107; course of bill, 107-10; 
 stand of Clay, 109-12; included in per- 
 manent tariff bill, in; views on, 11 1- 
 12, and note i; passes and is vetoed, 
 .111; separate distribution bill (1842) 
 |j)ass es, vetoed by Tyler, 113. 
 
 Divorce bill. See Independent treas- 
 ury. 
 
 Donation of land. Included in Benton's 
 graduation bill, 6; urged by labor, 7, 
 8, 68, 69; threatened by distribution, 
 
 2S- 
 
 Education, bill to use land proceeds for 
 common schools, 51. 
 
 Edwards, Ninian, sectional leader, 14; 
 claims public land within States, 7, 
 note 4, 13, 15, 19; relations with Duff 
 Green, 13, note 2; relations with Cal- 
 houn, 18-19; interpretation of Consti- 
 tution, 19; message to legislature, 
 (1828), 13-15; message to legislature 
 (1830), 23; result of association with 
 Calhoim, 23. 
 
 Evans, G. H., views on public land, 42, 
 69; possible influence on Jackson, 42. 
 
 Ewing, Thomas, resolution to annul spe- 
 cie circular, 54. 
 
 Foot, S. A., opposes Western land plans, 
 26; possible relation with North Atlan- 
 tic interests, 27-28; introduces resolu- 
 tion for limiting sales of public lands 
 (1829), 26; reasons for, 27; debate on, 
 28-31; Benton attacks, 28-29; Hayne's 
 attitude, 29; tabled on motion of Web- 
 ster, 31, note 3. See South and West 
 alliance. 
 
 Gallatin, Albert, views on public lands, 2. 
 
 Graduation of price of public lands, origin 
 of idea, 6, note 3; desire of West for, 7; 
 Benton's graduation bill (1828), 6; vote 
 on, 8; vote analyzed, 9; result of failure, 
 12; passes Senate (1830), 33; terms, 33, 
 note 4; vote analyzed, 33-34; tabled in 
 House, 34; vote analyzed, 34, note 3; 
 graduation amendment to Clay's dis- 
 tribution bill (1832), 40; vote analyzed, 
 40; course of (in 1834-35), 49, note i; 
 included in Calhoun's cession bill 
 (1837), 59; included in Morris's bill, 53, 
 note i; Morris's graduation amend- 
 ment to land bill (1837), lost, 56-57; 
 graduation and deficit, 68; favored by 
 Van Buren, 68, 70-71; Walker's bill 
 passes Senate (1838), 71; vote analyzed, 
 71, note i; polirical character of, 71; not 
 taken up in House, 71, note 3; bill in- 
 troduced by Clay of Alabama (1839), 
 passes Senate, 72-73; opposition of 
 
INDEX 
 
 129 
 
 Clay of Kentucky, 73; vote analyzed, 
 73, note s; tabled in House, 73; vote 
 analyzed, 73, note 5; passes Senate 
 (1839), 83; vote analyzed, 83; fails in 
 House, 83; included in Calhoun's ces- 
 sion bill (1840), 84, note 4; included in 
 Calhoun's cession amendment to Log 
 Cabin Bill, 89. 
 
 Green, Duff, approves of rights of States 
 to public lands, 13, 22; relation to Ed- 
 wards and Calhoun, 13, note 2, 20-22. 
 
 Grundy, Felix, loyal supporter to Jackson, 
 SS, note 6; upholds Benton's resolutions 
 against assumption, 79-80; opinion on 
 assumption, 81. 
 
 Harrison, William H., nomination for 
 President, 76, 82; views on land, 86-87, 
 note 3; letter to, from Rothschild, 90, 
 note 2; breach with Clay, 96; dies, 96. 
 See Whigs. 
 
 Hayne, Robert Y., on importance of pub- 
 lic-land question, lo-ii ; attitude on 
 land, 29, 33, note 4, 41, note 3, 43; and 
 Foot's resolution, 29; declares friendship 
 of South for West, 29-30; opposes tariff 
 and consolidation of the Government, 
 29; attacked by Webster, 31; tariff reso- 
 lutions of, referred to Committee on 
 Manufactures, 34-35. 
 
 Hunt's distribution resolution, 23, 25, 26. 
 
 Independent treasury bill, connection 
 with public lands, 66, 68; views of 
 West on, 67-68; passes Senate (1837), 
 67; vote analyzed, 68; tabled in House, 
 68; vote analyzed, 68; passes Senate 
 (1838), 72; cooperation of Western 
 Democrats and Administration, 72, 83; 
 vote analyzed, 72; fails in House, 72; 
 vote analyzed, 72; passed Senate and 
 House (1840), 84; votes analyzed, 84. 
 
 Internal improvements, connection with 
 public lands, 3, s, 37; sectional views on, 
 9, 10; connection with tariff and lands, 
 44, note 2, 45, and note 3; stopped by 
 panic, 75; Tyler's views on, 96. See As- 
 sumption. 
 
 Jackson, Andrew, views of, on public 
 lands, 42-44; influence of Evans and 
 Benton, 42; opposes distribution, 47, 
 S0-51; and specie circular, 51-52, 55; 
 
 opposes Ewing's bill and Rives's substi- 
 tute bill, 54, note 7, 55; opposes Rives's 
 bill, 55-56; favors Log Cabin bill, 87- 
 88, 93; hostile to assumption, 91. See 
 action of Jackson's party on Bibb's re- 
 solution, 34-36; on Clay's Distribution 
 bill (1832-33), 39, (1836), 50. 
 
 Labor, relation to free land, 7, 8, 27, note 
 4, 28; relation to distribution, 39; pos- 
 sible influence on Jackson, 42; on Van 
 Buren, 68; resolutions in conventions 
 (1834, 1836), 68, 69; supports specie 
 circular, 69. See Loco Focos. 
 
 Land Bill of 183 7, proposed by Morris, 53 ; 
 indorsed and amended by Committee on 
 Public Lands, 53, and note 2; regarded 
 as sanction of specie circular, 55; con- 
 nection with Rives's bill, 55-56; not 
 satisfactory to pioneer West, 56; op- 
 posed by Whigs, 57; opposed by Cal- 
 houn, 58-60; Morris's graduation 
 amendment lost, 56; vote analyzed, 56, 
 note 9; party measure, 60-61; cession 
 amendment lost, 62; vote analyzed, 62; 
 ordered to third reading, 62; vote ana- 
 lyzed, 62; final form, 64, note 2; passes 
 Senate and House, 64; votes analyzed, 
 64, and note 4. 
 
 Lawrence, Abbott, attitude on tariff and 
 public lands, 27, notes 4 and 5; letter to 
 Webster, 27, note 5. 
 
 Legislature of Illinois, urges cession of 
 public lands, 16. See Edwards, Ninian. 
 
 Loco Focos, advocate cause of labor, 68; 
 influence Van Buren, 68, 70; support 
 specie circular, 69; desire free land, 69- 
 70; moderate Loco Focos join Demo- 
 cratic party, 70. 
 
 Log Cabin Bill, providing permanent pre- 
 emption, introduced by Benton, 87, and 
 note 4; approved by Jackson, 87-88; 
 distribution amendment to, lost, 88, 92- 
 93; cession amendment to, lost, 89, 92- 
 93; original bill passes Senate, 93; vote 
 analyzed, 93; not taken up in the 
 House, 93; the result of, 93. 
 
 Log Cabin campaign, 82-84, 87; attempt 
 of Democrats to show up inconsisten- 
 cies of Whigs in, 86. See Whigs. 
 
 McLane, L., Treasury Report of, 41. 
 Morris, Thomas, introduces bill to limit 
 
130 
 
 INDEX 
 
 sales of public lands to actual settlers 
 (1836), 52-53; graduation amendment 
 to land bill, 56-57. 
 
 National Trades Union Convention's re- 
 solutions on public lands, 69. 
 
 North Atlantic States, economic interests 
 of, analyzed, 9-10; favor high-priced 
 public lands and distribution of pro- 
 ceeds, 5-6, 27, and note 4, 37-38, 89. 
 See votes on Foot's resolution, Tariff, 
 Distribution, Cession, Preemption, 
 Graduation, Land Bill of 1837, Inde- 
 pendent Treasury. 
 
 Northwest, economic interests of, ana- 
 lyzed, 9-10. See West. 
 
 Nullification. See Calhoun. 
 
 Preemption, desire of West for, 3, 56; suc- 
 cess threatened by distribution, 25 ; in- 
 cluded in land bill of 1837, 53, note 2, 
 56; Van Buren favors, 70; retrospective 
 preemption (1838), passes Senate and 
 House, 71; votes analyzed, 71, note 2; 
 bill extending Act of 1838 two years 
 passes Senate (1840), 83; course in the 
 House, 83, and note 8; included in Cal- 
 houn's cession plan (1840), 84, note 4. 
 See Benton's Log Cabin Bill (1841), and 
 Bistribution-Preemption Bill (1841). 
 
 Public lands, influence of, on Democracy, 
 2; revenue attitude toward, 2-6, 9; im- 
 portance of question, lo-ii, 38, 48, 95; 
 views of sections on, 9-10, 27, note 4; 
 used for political purposes, 22, 38, 50- 
 51, 60, 62, 63, 64, 72, 84-85, 92, note I, 
 117; influence on wages, 27, note 4. See 
 West, North Atlantic States, South, 
 Distribution of proceeds. Graduation of 
 price. Cession to States, Preemption, 
 Donation, Independent treasury; see 
 also Edwards, Calhoun, Clay, Jackson, 
 Benton, Van Buren, Adams. 
 
 Reduction in price of public lands, re- 
 ferred to Committee on Manufactures, 
 34; recommended by Jackson, 42; vote 
 of South on, 43-44. See Graduation. 
 
 Revenue attitude toward public lands, 2- 
 6, 9. See North Atlantic States, Clay, 
 Adams, Distribution. 
 
 Rives, W. C, amendment to Ewing's re- 
 solution, 54; opposed by Jackson, 54; 
 
 referred to Committee on Public Lands 
 and to Committee on Finance, 55; ar- 
 rangement with Jackson, 55-56; Clay's 
 amendment to Rives's bill, 56; passage 
 of bill in Senate and House, 56 ; vote ana- 
 lyzed, 56; pocket-vetoed by Jackson, 56; 
 Rives accused of bidding for West, 63. 
 
 Rothschild letters to Harrison and Web- 
 ster, go, and note 2. 
 
 Rush, Richard,iTreasury Report, 28, note 5. 
 
 Sectionalism, economic interest of sec- 
 tions analyzed, 9-10; fostered by pub- 
 lic-land question, 38; result on land 
 poUcy, 114-16. See West, South, South 
 and West alliance. North Atlantic States. 
 
 Sevier, J., attitude of, toward Land Bill of 
 1837, 57; favors Calhoun's cession plan, 
 61-62. 
 
 Slaves, bill to use land proceeds for eman- 
 cipation of, 5. 
 
 South, economic interest analyzed, 9-10; 
 result of sectional struggle on, 115. See 
 South and West alliance, Calhoun, 
 Foot's resolution, Hayne, votes on 
 Graduation, Distribution, Cession, Pre- 
 emption, Assumption, Tariff, Land Bill 
 of 1837. 
 
 South and West alliance, reasons for, 9- 
 10; beginnings through Calhoun and 
 Edwards, 18, 21-23; through aggression 
 of North Atlantic States, 23; vote on 
 Hunt's resolution (1830), 25-26; Ben- 
 ton looks to South for aid, 29, 31; 
 Hayne offers alliance, 29; supposed 
 terms of compact, 30; party opinions 
 of) 3°~3i; Webster's hostility to, 31; 
 reasons for hostility to, 32; attitude 
 toward Foot's resolution, 31, note 3; ac- 
 tion on Benton's graduation bill (T830), 
 33-34; action on reference of tariff and 
 land questions to Committee on Manu- 
 factures (1832), 34-35, and note 3; vote 
 on reference of Clay's distribution bill 
 to Committee on Public Lands (1832), 
 39; report of committee, 39; action on 
 Clay's bill in House, 40; failure of South 
 to pass graduation amendment, 40; end 
 of alliance, 40; vote of South on reduc- 
 tion and cession, 43; vote of West on 
 tariff of 1832, 40; desire of Calhoun to 
 renew, 92. 
 
 Southwest. See West. 
 
INDEX 
 
 131 
 
 Specie circular (1836), provisions, 51; 
 Whigs attack, 51-52; Jackson defends, 
 52; Ewing's resolution to annul, 54; 
 amended by Rives, 54; opposition of 
 Jackson, 54, and note 7; effect, 65; 
 solicitation for repeal, 65, note i; atti- 
 tude of Van Buren's followers, 65; Van 
 Buren allows circular to stand, 65; later 
 course, 65, note 5. 
 
 Speculation in public lands, 49, 51, and 
 note I, 52, 55, 57-58. 
 
 Squatters, desire preemption, 3. See Pre- 
 emption. 
 
 States' rights. See Calhoun, Edwards, 
 Webster. 
 
 State stocks, 76-77, 79-80, 89, 90, 91, 94, 
 98, 102. 
 
 Surplus, suggested remedies for, 49-51, 
 S3; deposit act, 51. See Specie circular, 
 Land Bill of 1837. 
 
 Tariff, views of sections on, 9, 27, note 5; 
 of Abominations, 12, note i; Hajme's 
 opposition to, 29; resolutions referred to 
 Committee on Manufactures, 34; vote 
 analyzed, 35, note 2; connection with 
 distribution, 24-25, 29, 38, 39, 44-47, 
 80, 91-92, 98, 101-03, 105-11; vote of 
 South on tariff of 1832, 35, note 3; vote 
 of West on, 40; compromise tariff, 44; 
 provisional tariff, 107; includes dis- 
 tribution, 107; passes House, 108; 
 amended, passes Senate, and vetoed, 
 108; sectional and party views on, 108- 
 10; bill including distribution passes, 
 iic>-ii; vetoed, in; bill without dis- 
 tribution passes House and Senate, 113; 
 vote analyzed, 113. 
 
 Tyler, John, vote on graduation, 33-34; 
 became President, 96; previous political 
 action, 96; attitude on land, 97; influ- 
 ences distribution-preemption bill, loi- 
 03; friction between Whigs and, 97, 105, 
 note 3, 106-08, no; vetoes provisional 
 tariff, 108; vetoes tariff-distribution bill, 
 in; pocket-vetoes distribution bill, 113. 
 
 Van Buren, Martin, and Edwards, 23 ; and 
 Calhoun, 22-23, 84-85; on land ques- 
 tion, 8, 41, note 3; 57, 64, 66, 68, 70-71, 
 93-94; and specie circular, 65 ; West and 
 independent treasury, 66-68, 70-72, 84; 
 and tariff without distribution (1842), 
 
 111-12, and note i; political character 
 of land policy, 64, 72, 85. 
 
 Wakefield, E. G., ideas on land, 4. 
 
 Walker, R. J., favors Calhoun's cession 
 plan, 61; reports cession from Commit- 
 tee on Public Lands, 72; opposes dis- 
 tribution, 100. 
 
 Webster, Daniel, relation with A. Law- 
 rence and Foot, 27, notes 5 and 6; 
 alarmed at South and West alliance, 3 1 ; 
 reason for alarm, 32; motion to table 
 Foot's resolution, 31, and note 3; plea 
 for national interpretation of Constitu- 
 tion, 31; on party character of vote on 
 distribution (1832), 40, note 2; interest 
 in State stocks, 76-77, and notes 3 and 
 5; on tariff, distribution, and internal 
 improvements, 42, and note 2; letter 
 from Rothschild, 90, note 2 ; vote on pre- 
 emption, 93. 
 
 West, economic interest analyzed, 9-10; 
 pohtical influence of, 3, 32, 61, 64, 66, 
 75, 82, 97, 104, 106, 1 14-15; desires pre- 
 emption, 3, donation and graduation, 6; 
 cession, 7, 13, 16-17, 20; opposes dis- 
 tribution, 6, 25, 28, 39; remedy for sur- 
 plus, 49; result of sectional struggle on, 
 114-15. See South and West alliance, 
 Benton, Jackson, Clay, Van Buren, 
 votes on Assumption, Independent 
 Treasury, Graduation, Preemption, 
 Cession, Distribution, Tariff, and Land 
 Bill of 1837. 
 
 Whigs, favor distribution as solution for 
 surplus, 54; attack cession, 63; and as- 
 sumption, 78; Log Cabin campaign, 82- 
 84, 87; attempt of Democrats to show 
 up inconsistency of, 86; Clay's interpre- 
 tation of Whig victory (1840), 87; pos- 
 sible influence of foreign capitalists on, 
 89-90; friction between Tyler and, 105- 
 10. See Baring circular. Specie circu- 
 lar. Independent treasury. Assumption, 
 and votes on Graduation, Cession, Pre- 
 emption, Distribution, Tariff, Rives's 
 bill; see also Tyler, Clay. 
 
 Woodbury, Levi, vote on graduation, 34; 
 favors restriction of land sales to actual 
 settlers, 52; on distribution, 100. 
 
 Wright, Silas, solution for surplus, 53-54; 
 attitude on tariff, 112, note i; on dis- 
 tribution and tariff, io6^ note 5.