numbered.1 The effort to make such a man the head of the nation decided his immediate and permanent downfall. Only sixty-eight votes were cast in the caucus, and, from the very first moment, Crawford had not the least prospect of success.

2

The leading men in congress considered it most probable that the "dynasty of the secretaries of state" would be still continued, and that the younger Adams would be elected. The wariest and oldest politicians began to evince the most noteworthy distrust of the power of precedent.

Andrew Jackson was a thoroughly "irregular" candidate. The legislature of Tennessee had recommended his election, to the extreme astonishment of the people of the New England states, who did not know whether to laugh at the absurdity or grow wroth at the audacity of the recommendation. Hitherto, only the names of men with whom the people had been long acquainted as statesmen filling the most important official positions, had been mentioned in connection with the presidency. But Jackson had not yet shown that he understood even the alphabet of the art of politics. Tennessee had, indeed, sent him to the house. of representatives during Washington's administration, and afterwards to the senate; but all that congress knew of him. was, that, whenever he began to speak, violence choked his utterance. And his mind was as untrained as his passions. were unbridled. He had been, it is true, a lawyer of note in Tennessee, and had sat on the bench of the supreme court of the state. But he had won his laurels in this field, at the time when, to both lawyers and judges, it was, in Tennessee,

'The caucus was, however, not only undemocratic, but unquestionably in conflict with the spirit of the constitution, for art. II, sec. 1, § 2, provides: "No senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.”

2 "The caucus has hurt nobody but its friends, as far as I can judge Dan. Webster to Ez. Webster, 22 Feb., 1824. Webster's Priv. Corresp., I, p. 346.

now.

JACKSON'S CHARACTER.

3

a matter of almost as much importance to be up to the wiles and intrigues of the Indians, to have a fearless heart, and be a good shot, as it was to be versed in the law of the land.

The nation knew Jackson only as a successful and arrogant general. But the leading men of the eastern states thought, and rightly so, that the political wisdom and political sobriety of the people were too great to allow them to pay such a price as the presidency for the battle of New Orleans and a few victorious Indian fights. Another force, the influence of which they did not comprehend until later, and even then only imperfectly, was the decisive one.

Jackson was the man of the masses, because by his origin and his whole course of development, both inner and outer, he belonged to them.

From the mass of the population in the southern states there arose an aristocracy of large landed proprietors and slave holders, and in the northeastern states a bourgeoisie composed of merchants, those engaged in industrial pursuits and the followers of the learned professions. The struggle for political supremacy had thus far been carried on by these two strata of the population; and the plebs, with political rights, as a rule did no more than furnish the common soldiery with which the leaders fought their battles. But the heat of party struggles and their vicissitudes had already taught this same plebs, and well enough, that the power was in their hands, and that it only depended on their will, whether they would actually exercise it themselves or not, The construction of the state was based on the assumption that they were equal to the task, and the talk of their leaders had gradually clothed the theory of popular sovereignty in such a garb, that its literal execution and the idea of the republic and of freedom seemed to be coincident. All that was wanting to change the desire of making the actual con

dition of things harmonize better with theory, into a resolve, was an exciting cause in the shape of an opportunity. This opportunity was afforded by Jackson's candidacy, for his name was already a very noticeable one in the history of his country. It was not the victorious general, but the man of the people, the "popular man," who by his warlike deeds. had added to the people's fame and demonstrated his qualifications as a leader, that was selected as a standard bearer.

New England's scorn was silenced when the state convention of Pennsylvania, on the 4th of March, 1824, with only one dissenting voice, indorsed the nomination of the legislature of Tennessee. If it were not for the fact that there were four candidates in the field, Jackson would, in all probability, have been elected, even now, by an imposing majority. In consequence of this division, no one of the candidates received the constitutional majority of all the electoral votes, and the election, therefore, - Clay, who had received the smallest number of electoral votes, dropping out devolved on the house of representatives. Crawford had received only four votes more than Clay, and was virtually no longer considered.1 The question was now between Jackson and Adams, and the decision lay with Clay and his adherents. Ninetynine electors had voted for Jackson, and eighty-four for Adams. Spite of this, however, Clay cast his weight into the balance for Adams, and the latter was elected by the house of representatives, by the votes of thirteen states against eleven, of which last seven were cast for Jackson and four for Crawford.?

166 Shortly before the election of president, a meeting was held by the members of the New York delegation, friendly to the election of Mr. Crawford, at which, upon a full view of the subject, they decided with great unanimity to adhere to Mr. Crawford to the end, and leave the election to be made by others." Hammond, The Hist. of Political Parties in the State of New York, II, pp. 540, 541.

2 Deb. of Congr., VIII, p. 324.

A CHARGE AGAINST CLAY.

20

5

Twelve days before the election in the house of representatives, the Columbian Observer, a journal issued in Philadelphia, had printed an anonymous letter charging Clay with having traded his influence to Adams for the secretaryship of state. One Kremer, a half-educated representative from the rural districts of Pennsylvania, acknowledged himself later to be the author of the letter, and persisted in his charge, although he refused to appear as a witness before the committee of the house of representatives, which at Clay's own request had been appointed to investigate the matter. The Jackson party eagerly grasped at the accusation, and when Clay afterwards accepted the secretaryship of state, his acceptance was declared an entirely valid proof of its truth. Jackson himself was fully convinced of his rival's guilt, and remained so until his dying day. "The knaves," wrote Clay January 29, 1825, to F. P. Blair, "cannot comprehend how a man can be honest."1 Unfortunately enough, circumstances afforded the "knaves" and little souls the most various points of support for their imputations and suspicions. Clay was neither personally nor politically a friend of Mr. Adams. He complains himself that he was left"only a choice of evils." Besides, Kremer's charge was one of those libels which, in skillful hands, never fail to do good service, no matter what the attitude one may assume towards them. If Clay had not been invited to take a place in the cabinet, or if he had declined the call, there were those who, with hypocritical glances, would have congratulated themselves that "honest Kremer"-evidently only a coarse tool in the hands of others—had by his opportune revelations prevented the "corrupt trade."s Adams and Clay

1 Priv. Corresp. of H. Clay, p. 112.

Ibid., p. 110.

3 According to Sargent, Public Men and Events, I, p. 70, the letter was probably written by Eaton.

would have gained nothing; but the most insignificant person might henceforth hope to be able to compel the most distinguished and best tried men of the nation to bend to the force of the basest calumny. All the protestations possible that they had not been influenced by force, would have availed the president and Clay as little as the assurances, supported by the testimony of unimpeachable witnesses, that their decisions had been governed only by political and patriotic considerations, availed them now. Benton, Jackson's fanatical partisan, declared then, and later in public, in emphatic words, that before December 15, 1824, that is, long before the time at which it was said the alleged trade was made, Clay himself had informed him that he would vote for Adams.1 James Buchanan, who, according to Jackson's statement, proposed the same trade to him, at the suggestions of "Clay's friends," in January, 1825, was obliged to absolve Clay from being privy to it in any way, and to take this dubious attempt at friendly mediation entirely on his own shoulders. Yet, spite of all this, the base lie remained a great impediment in the way of Adams' further progress, but especially of Clay's, although they had the fullest certainty that their names would be handed down to history unsullied by this blot.

The accusation was so entirely baseless that it could not, for a long series of years, have played so significant a part in the history of presidential elections, were it not that another circumstance made the election of Adams, through Clay's influence, appear in the eyes of a majority of the people as the commission of a great crime. Jackson had received a no trifling plurality, both of the electoral and popular vote; and in several of the states which had voted for Crawford or Clay, he was second in favor. Relying on this,

1 Thirty Years' View, I, p. 48; Niles', XXX, pp. 375, 376. Compare, also, Clay's Priv. Corresp., pp. 109–112.