But Jackson's proclamation did more than manifest the resolution of the president to put down practical nullification in South Carolina; more than reiterate the sentiment of his toast at the Jefferson dinner: “Our Federal Union; it must be preserved." It was at once seen to be an elaborate commentary on the constitution. As such, its friends and critics felt that it sustained the views of those who had been contending for liberal construction." Criticisms on that basis soon came in from Jackson's earlier followers who, though by no means ready to endorse nullification, felt that he had gone too far. The Milledgeville Southern Recorder issued its warning that many of the views were such as would be repudiated "by the great republican party of the union, as utterly at war with some of the fundamental principles of their political creed". Given to choose between Jackson and their cherished state rights doctrines, many southerners did not hesitate to remain true to the latter. In Virginia especially was this true: there the practical nullifiers were weak in numbers but state rights doctrines met almost universal acceptance particularly in the eastern half of the state; to none of the voters in that section were the views of Jackson's proclamation very palatable. Niles pointed out that "it completely nullified the contracted and the starched theories of the 'Virginia school of politicians""" Vindication of the "ancient principles" of the state against the proclamation was inconsistent with continued support of Jackson." The result was the growth of a formidable state rights party which, with the exception of

Nile Register, XLIII, 249; Boston Gazette, in ibid., 286; Milledgeville Soze zhern Recorder, in ibid., 345.

Ibid.

249.

57 Richmond Whig, in ibid., 345.

a few extremists, aimed to voice a protest against the principles of the president's proclamation, while rejecting the remedy resorted to by South Carolina."

60

59

The attitude of some of the Virginia leaders calls for attention. Governor Floyd bitterly denounced “the disgusting prostitution of President Jackson "." When Senator Tyler considered the fate of his country should the principles of the proclamation prevail, "his language breathed the spirit of patriotism and the principles of '98"." John Randolph, the patriarch of Roanoke, jumped from his sick bed at the news of the proclamation and devoted the closing days of his long life to a busy campaign in which he denounced Jackson's stand in the loudest anathemas." The proclamation completed the alienation from Jackson of Bibb, Upshur, Gordon, and Tazewell." William S. Archer, who was still supporting the administration as part of his "public duty", believed and so informed Van Buren "that as to getting Virginia to adopt the President's proclamation doctrines it was out of the question— that you might rely upon it no matter who might say otherwise that the old fashioned doctrines would be ⚫ sustained by an overwhelming vote"." When the news of the effect of the proclamation in their state reached General Gordon and Senator Tyler at Washington, they both sprang up, caught each other in their arms

66

58 Richmond Whig, in Niles' Register, XLIII, 285.

50 Floyd to L. W. Tazewell, Dec. 28, 1832. Mrs. Floyd wrote to her husband from their home, Jan. 1, 1833, denouncing the president as "a bloody, bawdy, treacherous, lecherous villain.. There is an universal indignation amongst the women of the country at the Presi dent's course." Floyd MSS.

C. A. Wickliffe to T. W. Gilmer, Dec. 15, 1832, William and Mary Quarterly, XV, 227-228.

61 Garland, Life of John Randolph, II, 359-362.

62 Tyler, Letters and Times of the Tylers, I, 476.

63 C. C. Cambreleng to Van Buren, Dec. 26, 1832, Van Buren MSS.

and danced around the room like children in a delirium of joy"." The effect upon the popularity of the president was instantaneous. Many of his most ardent admirers at once deserted his standard, alienated by the wound which they claimed he had inflicted on the constitution and liberty. The movement for state rights was strong enough to carry many National Republicans into its ranks: Pleasants, the editor of the Richmond Whig, became the staunch defender of state rights as he had been of the American system." His rival, Ritchie of the Enquirer, was led by his friendship for Jackson to act as his apologist though even he could not approve of the principles he had voiced. Ritchie. was ready to believe that the proclamation did not reflect the individual views of the president, that the argument was rather that of his secretary, and that his attitude toward the Virginia doctrines remained unchanged." This was but one of the ways in which Jackson men reconciled their political beliefs with the continued support of their leader.

Jackson's popularity was fully put to the test and loyalty to him was the only force that restrained many from criticism and condemnation. Often in spite of apparent inconsistency they made their views conform to those of the president, dropping the South Carolina doctrines in hot haste and condemning as traitors the

Green to Crallé, Dec. 15, 1832, Duff Green MSS.

es Cf. Tyler to Floyd, Jan. 16, 1833, Tyler MSS. General John Floyd, a Jackson elector in the last election, wrote to Governor Floyd under date of Jan. 3, 1833: "His unlooked for uncalor and ILL timed proclamation. has torn off the mask, etc." Floyd MSS.

...

Duff Green had only the highest praise for Pleasants and his work. He wrote to Crallé, Dec. 16, 1832: "The effect of his paper in the House of Reps was apparent in every countenance. The Whigs were congratulating each other." Cf. letter of Dec. 15, Duff Green MSS. et Niles' Register, XLIII, 345.

leaders whose views they had recently prided them⚫ selves on following." It is safe, however, to conclude that the great body of advanced state rights men were beyond reconciliation and that this meant a group large enough to weaken the hold of Jackson in the South. For what was true of Virginia was also true, more or less, of North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi where state rights was strong and opposition to • Jacksonism a growing force." There the threat of coercion had the effect of fostering nullification and of giving it a prestige with some that all the arguments of Calhoun could not have accomplished. Those whose consciences could not be satisfied with an adaptation of Madison's interpretation of the Virginia report and resolutions of 1798 were inevitably led in that direction. The proclamation gave the death blow to many a southerner's Jacksonism.

The nation was facing a crisis. Each side had shown its hand and was now waiting for the other to act; it remained to be seen whether the controversy would have to be settled by the force of arms. Certain facts made this decidedly improbable. Jackson, to be sure, had requested further provision for carrying out the principles laid down in his proclamation, out of which grew the force bill or "bloody bill ", a brutum fulmen which was received in the South with no less hostility than had been manifested toward the executive mani

Knoxville Republican, in ibid., 319. Henry A. Wise opposed the " Federal heresies" of the proclamation on the one hand and on the other the remedies of South Carolina. He therefore continued his support of the administration. Hambleton, Virginia Politics, xvii-xviii; Wise, Life of Wise, 37-40. Cf. R. E. Parker to Van Buren, March 21, 1833, Van Buren MSS.

* Green to Crallé, Dec. 15, 1832, Duff Green MSS. [E. J. Hale] to Mangum, Jan. 20, 1833, etc., Mangum MSS.

festo. But the olive branch was just as sure to be extended in the other hand. The administration was itself prepared to offer a tariff measure which was intended to tranquillize the South."

There was one man who was ready at this time to play the part of a compromiser-that man was Henry Clay. He had within the past year tried to effect an amicable adjustment of the tariff, but had failed in his resolution of 1832 to go far enough to satisfy the South and its leaders. The election that followed had taught him the necessity of building up his strength in the southern states, which suggested further concessions in the matter of the tariff. He was indeed planning some such service as he prepared to leave his home at Ashland for the coming session of Congress." As Crittenden had pointed out to Clay before the enactment of the tariff of 1832, a reduction of duties was not only consistent with the principle of protection when the reduction affected manufactures which were already established on a firm and permanent basis but such a policy would even demonstrate the soundness of the protectionist principle, in making possible the announcement that it had accomplished the very results that had been claimed for it." Crittenden was but one of those who had been urging upon him such a peace offering to conciliate the opponents of the tariff in the present crisis.

John Randolph in his speeches against the president's proclamation pointed to Clay as the only man who could

70 See Jackson MSS. and Van Buren MSS., especially C. C. Cambreleng to Van Buren, Dec. 29, 1832.

1 See Crittenden to Clay, Nov. 24, 1832; Clay to Crittenden, Nov. 28, 1832, Crittenden MSS.

12 Crittenden to Clay, Feb. 23, 1832, Crittenden MSS.