University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Presidential Nominations In The Federal Era, 1788-1828

(USC Thesis Other)

Presidential Nominations In The Federal Era, 1788-1828

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content 71 - 12,404 M ORGAN, W illiam Graham, 1940- PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS IN THE FEDERAL ERA, 1788-1828. U n iv er sity o f Southern C a lif o r n ia , Ph.D., 1969 H isto r y , modern University Microfilms, A X ERO X C om pany, Ann Arbor, Michigan o Copyright by WILLIAM GRAHAM MORGAN 1971 THIS DISSERATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS IN THE FEDERAL ERA, 1788-1828 by William Graham Morgan A D issertatio n Presented to the FACULTY OF THE G RA D U A TE SCHO OL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In P a rtia l F ulfillm ent o f the Requirements fo r the Degree D O CTO R OF PHILOSOPHY (H istory) June 1969 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TH E G R A D U A T E S C H O O L U N IV E R S IT Y PARK LO S A N G E L E S. C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by ...W ILLIAM GRAHAM MORGAN..................... under the direction of h\§..... Dissertation C om mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Gradu ate School, in partial fulfillment of require ments for the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y C 3 L r - . V / ' 7 7 1 ^ O ........................................................................................................... f.J .................... Dean Date.. JT G T E V ? ( 'T> DISSERTATION COMMITTEE ...... / . / 1 ' / j Chairman ..... PREFACE Much discussion about e le c to ra l college and national nomina tin g convention reform surrounded the e le c tio n of 1968. The sp e c te r o f the p re s id e n tia l co n test being decided by the House of Represen ta tiv e s fo r the f i r s t time since 1825 haunted p u n d its, p o litic ia n s , and people throughout the n atio n . The discordant Democratic con vention 1n Chicago, plus the c iv il d iso rd er which accompanied I t , re su lte d In a more probing an aly sis o f the weaknesses of our system o f national nominations than o rd in a rily occurs. Senator Henry Bellmon (R-Oklahoma) has, 1n f a c t , recen tly suggested le g is la tio n which would elim in ate the national convention In favor of d ire c t p re sid e n tia l prim aries. Yet there seems to be r e la tiv e ly l i t t l e consensus on the s p e c ific means to reform e i th e r the e le c to ra l college or the nominating system, beyond the opinion current among a s u b sta n tia l number of Americans th a t changes are needed. In the midst o f the Ideological ferment as well as concern from a pragmatic p e rsp e c tiv e , a topic o f a t le a s t tangential I n te r e s t concerns the methods by which p re sid e n tia l candidates were nomi nated during the period p rio r to the establishm ent of the national nominating convention. This study 1s designed to t e l l the s to ry — the what, how, and why—o f nomination, both fo r President and fo r V ice-P resident, during the Federal Era, those pre-convention years 1788-1828 during which the p o litic a l processes in the young Republic 11 were moving toward g re a te r u n ity , s tr u c tu re , and purpose. In d e lin e a tin g lim its , 1t 1s perhaps best to o u tlin e what the work Is mrt before s ta tin g the p o sitiv e side o f the ledger. I t 1s not Intended to be a h is to ry o f p resid e n tia l e le c tio n s during the Federal Era. Indeed, except fo r passing referen c es, campaign Issues are examined only 1n the degree to which they re la te to nominations. Second, th is volume does not seek to present an encyclopedia of minutiae surrounding the v arie ty of nominating methods. D etails are given where they I l l u s t r a t e the nature o f, and response to , the choice of candidates and also when they are e s s e n tia l to an understanding of the In s titu tio n s through which nominations were made. T hird, the m aterial 1s n e ith e r an attem pt to portray merely the in s titu tio n a l frameworks through which p a rtie s selec ted th e ir candidates nor to consider such s tru c tu re s 1n is o la tio n from the p artisan r e a l i t i e s which determined th e ir shape and operation. Fourth, the volume was not planned as a h isto ry o f p o litic a l p a rtie s during the Federal Era, though p arts of th a t h isto ry form an In ev itab le and in te g ra l p art o f the p resen ta tio n . On the p o s itiv e s id e , th is study is a study of p o litic a l can d id a c ie s, of the men who ran fo r the n a tio n 's two highest o ffic e s and how they were nominated fo r th e ir opportunity to try fo r the la rg e s t and b rig h te s t brass ring on the p o litic a l merry-go-round. The dominant—o r regular-m ode of nomination and the candidates who were chosen 1n th is manner have received the primary focus of a tte n tio n . I f the reg u lar candidates were opposed by d iss id e n t members o f t h e i r own p a rty , considerable space has been devoted to 111 the factio n al contenders, the means by which they were s e le c te d , and the re la tio n sh ip between the resp ectiv e wings of the party. Hence, i f the stru g g le to become the o f f ic ia l standard-bearer was conclusively s e ttle d when the reg u la r nomination was e ffe c te d , no attem pt has been made to follow the remainder of the e le c tio n in any d e t a il. In s h o rt, th is volume is a h is to ry of nominations and candidates, Including how the resp ectiv e contenders and th e ir ad herents sought to win party support and how the various p artisan elements in te ra c te d b efo re, during, and a f te r the o f f ic ia l nomina tio n . There are three contributions which th is work 1s designed to make. F i r s t , i t brings Into one volume the sto ry o f p re sid e n tia l nominations during the Federal Era. While Information on the topic 1s, o f course, av ailab le 1n a v arie ty o f monographs, biographies, and a r t i c l e s , the absence of any competent fu ll-le n g th treatm ent requires the reader to consult a considerable number of such m aterials 1n order to g et a reasonably comprehensive view, and he w ill s t i l l lack a unifying thread to t i e the various fa c ts and approaches Into a system atic framework. The only attem pt to make a reasonably thorough study of the congressional system of nominations was pub lished in 1902: C. S. Thompson, The Rise and Fall of the Congres sional Caucus. This book is only about 100 pages long and for various reasons draws from few of the valuable manuscript co l le c tio n s and newspapers av a ila b le today. Another treatm ent of nominations 1s Frederick W . D allin g er, Nominations fo r E lective O ffice in the United S ta te s . This longer work devotes le ss than 45 1v pages to the pre-convention e r a , however, and i t s vintage also prevented the use o f many sources c u rre n tly a c c e ssib le . A few a r t i c l e s —such as Mosel O stro g o rsk i, "The Rise and Fall of the Nomi nating Caucus, L eg islativ e and Congressional," in the American H isto ric al Review—also provide some Inform ation, but even the sum to ta l o f the rele v an t periodical m aterial f a l l s f a r sh o rt of covering the to p ic . Second, through depth and breadth of research , an e f f o r t has been made to provide-more inform ation than previous commentators have presented. Sometimes the addition has been sm all, w hile on o th e r occasions i t has been s u b s ta n tia l. T hird, in some in sta n c e s, new approaches or d iffe re n t in te rp re ta tio n s have been employed. The bulk o f the Information found in th is study is based on m anuscript co lle c tio n s and newspapers of the period. Some of the c o lle c tio n s have not been explored by any w rite rs who have made meaningful reference to nominations during the Federal Era. Others have been used by a small number, w hile many of the remaining c o l le c tio n s are standard. Unexploited and li t t l e - u s e d co lle c tio n s offered e x c e lle n t o p p o rtu n ities to discover new inform ation; 1n a d d itio n , my in te rp re ta tio n o f m aterial in c o lle c tio n s used previously 1n reference to th is su b ject has a t times d iffe re d from the meaning attached by p r io r a n a ly sts . Most of the newspapers from which much inform ation has been gleaned are journals commonly consulted by p o litic a l h is to rian s o f th is p erio d , but again the m aterial e x tra cted and the ap p licatio n of 1t have sometimes varied from e a r l i e r treatm ents. Secondary works were most valuable in terms of the b ib lio g rap h ical li s t in g s o f unpublished sources which they provided; these l i s t s d irec ted me to some c o lle c tio n s which I would otherw ise have neglected. I owe a considerable debt of g ra titu d e to a number of people who have made th is study p o ssib le. F ir s t of a l l , I should lik e to thank my graduate committee, p a rtic u la rly P rofessor Russell L. Caldwell, my chairman, and P rofessor Arthur R. Kooker. M y app reciatio n 1s also due Professor Fred Krlnsky fo r his serv ice on the d is s e rta tio n committee 1n the absence of one of the o rig in al members, P rofessor Emeritus Carlton C. Rodee. In a d d itio n , considerable thanks must go to the s ta f f s of the research re p o sito rie s which I v is ite d : L ibrary o f Congress, U niversity o f North C arolina, Duke U niversity, North Carolina Department of Archives and H isto ry , South C arolInlana L ibrary a t the U niversity o f South C arolina, South Carolina H isto ric al S o ciety , Clemson U niversity, Tennessee S tate Library and Archives, V irginia S tate L ibrary, V irginia H isto ric al S ociety, U niversity o f V irg in ia, New York Public L ibrary, New-York H isto rical S ociety, Maryland His to ric a l S ociety, H isto ric al Society o f Pennsylvania, Yale U n iv ersity , Princeton U niversity, Connecticut H isto rical S ociety, Brown Univer s i t y , U niversity of Rochester, Buffalo and Erie County H isto ric al S ociety, Ohio H isto ric al S o ciety , Fllson Club, and Missouri H isto ric a l Society. Sources from Columbia U niversity and the Huntington L ibrary were viewed on microfilm . M y g ra titu d e should also be expressed to the U niversity o f Southern C alifo rn ia and to Oral Roberts I*i1vers1ty fo r research grants which s ig n ific a n tly aided my e ffo rts on th is p ro je c t. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. FR O M CONSENSUS TO CAUCUS, 1788-1804........................................ 1 I I . NOM INATIONS IN 1808: CA U CU S REPUBLICANS VERSUS IRREGULARS A N D PURIST FEDERALISTS............................................. 80 I I I . NOM INATIONS IN 1812: CA U CU S REPUBLICANS VERSUS IRREGULARS A N D PRAGM ATIC FEDERALISTS.................................... 173 IV. THE CONGRESSIONAL NOM INATING CA U CU S OF 1816: TH E STRUGGLE AGAINST THE VIRGINIA DYNASTY.........................................220 V. THE C A U CU S W ANES: 1820 A N D 1824............................................. 261 VI. A D A M S A N D O LD HICKORY IN 1828: NOM INATIONS IN TRANSITION............................................................................................. 340 CONCLUSION: NOM INATIONS IN RETROSPECT...........................................................394 BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................................... 409 v11 CHAPTER I FROM.CONSENSUS TO CAUCUS, 1788-1804 The United S tates through the Revolution had rid themselves o f the c e n tra liz in g power of England. The newly Independent s t a t e s , forced to "hang to g e th er o r hang sep arately " as the oft-quotec' *emark of the Revolutionary le ad er reminds us, proceeded to form a confedera tion form o f government to carry on the war and to operate beyond the c o n flic t as w ell. As 1s c h a r a c te r is tic of the confederation system, the c o n s titu e n t s ta te s reta in ed th e ir sovereignty. The weak cen tral power was given to a unicameral Congress, but there was n e ith e r a national ju d ic ia ry nor a national executive. This was, a f te r a l l , the era o f much suspicion ag ain st central a u th o rity . W hy Indeed, observed many, would anyone want to exchange the tyranny of King George fo r a home grown v a rie ty based 1n P hiladelphia? I t was, 1n s h o rt, the age o f American p o litic a l adolescence, ch ara cterized by an anti-power syndrome, e sp e c ia lly as 1t concerned a national government. But the A rtic le s of Confederation proved to be too weak for the spraw ling In fan t Republic. The v irtu a l absence of commerce and taxing powers, p a r tic u la r ly , made the operation of the national system d i f f i c u l t a t b est and chaotic a t w orst. Accordingly, as the In te n s ity of the anti-power sentim ent began to wane s lig h tly and the concern fo r s t a b i l i t y and—to borrow a p o li tic a lly explosive modem term—law and order began to grow, the movement was bom which led to the adoption 1 2 o f the C o n s titu tio n J The new Federal government was considerably d if f e r e n t from the confederation form. R atified a f te r a b i t t e r s tru g g le between Federal i s t s and A n ti-F e d e ra lis ts ,2 the C onstitution provided fo r a stro n g er national a u th o rity which, among o th e r th in g s, allo cated control over ta x atio n and the reg u latio n of I n te r s ta te and foreign commerce to the cen tral government. But the new s tru c tu re was more than new wine 1n old b o ttle s : the co n tain ers—a t le a s t most of them—were new as w ell. Notable among the fresh flagons were national ju d ic ia l and executive branches, the l a t t e r headed by a P resid en t. The choice of the c h ief executive was determined, as were many of the C o n s titu tio n 's fe a tu re s , by conpromlse. The framers provided fo r an e le c to ra l college composed o f Individuals chosen 1n the s ta te s who would vote fo r P resident. I f no candidate received a m a jo rity , the fin al decision would devolve on the House o f R epresentatives. The framers obviously had no idea th a t the American two-party system would develop, e sp e c ia lly during the 1790's; 1f they had, 1t would have required no small amount o f reverse genius to ju s ti f y the c o n stitu tio n a l provision specifying th a t the House would s e le c t from among the top fiv e contenders in case no one received a m ajority. V o r co n trastin g viewpoints on the Confederation period in America, see John Fiske, The C ritic a l Period in American History (Boston and New York, 1888) and M errill Jensen, The New Nation: A H istory o f the United S tates During the Confederation, 1781-1789 (New YoricTT9S'2y:---------------------- ------------------------------------------------ ^For a study o f th is c o n f lic t, see Jackson Turner Main, The A n ti-F e d e ra lists: C ritic s o f the C o n stitu tio n , 1781-1789 (New York, 1962). The same item shows, in a d d itio n , th a t the authors o f the new govern ment thought e le c tio n by the House would be fa r more common than i t has been. I f circumstances had developed as they expected, p r e s i dential nominations would have been le ss crucial than they became simply because the u ltim ate choice o f c h ie f executive would have been frequently relegated to the le g is la tu re ; the campaigns would have been ch aracterized by a p o litic a l melee of sizea b le proportions fought among a ra th e r large group of p re sid e n tia l hopefuls. But the emergence of the tw o-party system made i t e sse n tia l th a t the respective groups channel th e ir e ffo rts behind s p e c ific candidates; in such a game, no party could safely affo rd to waste votes on men who had no real chance o f being chosen. The increasingly system atic and stru c tu re d nature o f p a rtie s re su lte d in a general movement toward more system atic and s tru c tu re d nominations fo r P re s i dent and V ice-President. Indeed, from 1788 through 1828, nominations sh ifte d from consensus to caucus to s ta t e convention--and by 1832 to the national convention. The pre-eminence of George Washington in the eyes of the nation assured th a t he would be chosen as the f i r s t President--prov1ded, o f course, th a t he would accept the o f f ic e —and made nominations fo r the highest post under the new government largely superfluous. In June o f 1788, Thomas J e ffe rs o n , though noting Washington's s ile n c e , 3 f e l t c e rta in th a t the General would accept the presidency. Alexander o Jefferso n to William Carmichael (copy), June 3, 1788, Thomas Jefferso n Papers, Library o f Congress. Hamilton, among o th e rs , wrote In August urging Washington to respond to what would surely be the unanimous plea of the country: "You w ill permit me to say th a t 1t 1s Indispensable you should lend y o u rse lf to I ts [the government's] f i r s t o p e ra tio n s --It 1s to H t t l e purpose to have introduced a system, 1f the w eig h tiest Influence is not given to i t s firm establishm ent a t the o u tse t." Washington char a c t e r is ti c a ll y hedged his answer and modestly rep lied th a t he might not be chosen. But 1f he were and his leadership were considered e s s e n tia l, he would accept the task and forego his d esire to liv e in re tire m e n t.4 L etters much to the same e f f e c t were exchanged between the two men fo r several months. As la te as e a rly October, Washington seemed s t i l l to be pondering whether his services were as much in demand as Hamilton in s is te d . Indeed, i f those who favored the C onstitution supported him so stro n g ly because a Washington Adminis tra tio n would help the new government, would not the opponents of the C onstitution be against him fo r the same reason? Such unnecessary modesty could scarcely continue as the choice of e le c to rs in January came n e a re r, and, by about mid-November, Hamilton thought Washington 5 would d e fin ite ly be convinced of the need to heed America's c a l l. - Hamilton to Washington, August 13, 1788; Washington to Hamil ton, August 28, 1788, 1n Harold C. S y re tt and Jacob E. Cooke, e d s ., The Papers o f Alexander Hamilton (New York and London, 1961 — ) , V, 201-2, 207.---- ----------------- 5 Hamilton to Washington, September, 1788; Washington to Hamil ton, October 3, 1788; Hamilton to Washington, November 18, 1788, in S y re tt and Cooke, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, V, 220-24, 233-34. 5 The v ic e -p re sid e n tia l question, by c o n tra s t, was considerably more complex. Though such people as Charles Thomson, John Rutledge, John Jay, Baron Von Steuben, Benjamin Lincoln, John Hancock, George C linton, and General Henry Knox were among those mentioned fo r the second o f f ic e , the primary contender as of October was John Adams. But Hamilton had a fle e tin g fear th a t the New Englander might be unfriendly toward Washington and hence cause the new A dm inistration some embarrassment. I f th is view of Adams' Ideas were c o rre c t, Hamilton thought perhaps they should turn to Lincoln or Knox. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts quickly assured Hamilton th a t Adams was favorable toward Washington and th a t Knox or Lincoln would have no chance 1n his s ta t e . Hamilton acquiesced and agreed to work fo r Adams, though not e n tire ly without some m isgivings. In his e ffo rts fo r Adams, Hamilton also corresponded with James Madison, and when the Virginian informed him of a plan among some A n ti-F ed era lists to push George Clinton fo r V ice-President, he responded with the idea th a t the fe a r of such a man fo r the second spot might well be used to unify F e d e ra list a c t i v i t i e s . 6 Hamilton to Sedgwick, October 9, November 9, 1788; Sedgwick to Hamilton, October 16, November 2 , 1788; Hamilton to Madison, November 23, 1788; Hamilton to James Wilson, January 25, 1789, in S y re tt and Cooke, Papers of Alexander Hamilton, V, 225-26, 228, 231, 235-36, 248. Hamilton's l e t t e r to Madison indicated he backed Adams p rim arily because the New Englander had a s im ila r p o sitio n on the question of c o n stitu tio n a l amendments and because he was an impor ta n t man in the E ast, one who would e ith e r be appointed to an o ffic e fo r which he was le ss su ite d or become a d is s id e n t. See also De W itt Clinton to Dr. C linton, November 25, 1788, De W1tt Clinton Personal Papers M iscellaneous, Library of Congress. Jefferson to William Carmichael (copy), March 4, 1789, Thomas Jefferso n Papers, L ibrary of C o n ^ s s . Pa^e Smith, John Adams (2 v o ls ., Garden C ity, New York, Unlike modem p r a c tic e , and larg e ly because of the absence o f stru c tu re d p a r tie s , the p re sid e n tia l candidate had comparatively l i t t l e Influence 1n naming the man fo r the second o f f ic e . In f a c t, in O ctober, Washington s p e c ific a lly disclaim ed having discussed the question with anyone. He did feel th a t perhaps th e Importance of Massachusetts e n t itl e d her to receive th a t honor and by January 1, 1789, long a f t e r many realized the p re sid e n tia l choice was a foregone conclusion, the Virginian wrote th a t he was pleased by the reports of Adams' probable e le c tio n . This endorsement of th e e x istin g Adams candidacy no doubt helped the cause, and Washington subsequently to ld some e le c to rs th a t unity on th is point would prevent the selec tio n o f an A nti-F ederal1 s t. Thus, while not naming h is running mate, Washington did play a noteworthy role in forwarding Adams' chances once he was 1n the f ie ld .^ A ctually, the p o te n tial F e d e ra list concurrence on Adams for V ice-President reached the s ta te where Hamilton feared th a t some tric k e ry on the p a rt o f the A n ti-F e d e ra lists might even bring in the man from Massachusetts ahead of Washington. By la te January, the New York s t r a t e g i s t f e l t the only o th er candidates being serio u sly consid ered were Clinton in V irginia and John Rutledge in South Carolina; i f t h e ir p a rtisa n s decided to give them up, the to ta l could be unanimous fo r Adams. I f a few votes were then held back from Washington, the W ashington to Benjamin Lincoln, October 26, 1788; January 1, 31, 1789, in James H art, The American Presidency in Action, 1789; A Study 1n C o n s tltu tio n a lH is to ry (New York, 1948), 6. See also John Adams to Thomas J e ffe rs o n , January 2, 1789, Thomas Jefferso n Papers, Library o f Congress. 7 man thought of fo r second place might well come 1n f i r s t . Though the danger o f th is occurring was sm all, no chances should be taken. Per haps then, i t would be b est fo r seven or e ig h t Adams t a l l i e s to be thrown away, and he suggested th a t friends of the government in Connec t i c u t , New Je rse y , and Pennsylvania be advised to drop an appropriate number. Indeed, H amilton's plan was followed in Connecticut and elsew here--even more votes were wasted than was d esired . The danger of a t i e was imaginary: Washington received a unanimous vote of 69 in the e le c to ra l co lle g e , while Adams was awarded 34, j u s t le ss than a m a jo rity , though s u f f ic ie n t to win. The votes fo r o th er candidates went as follow s: John Jay of New York, nine; R. H. Harrison of Maryland, s ix ; John Rutledge of South C arolina, s ix ; John Hancock of M assachusetts, fo u r; George Clinton of New York, th re e ; Samuel Huntington of Connecticut, th re e ; John Milton of Georgia, two; James Armstrong of Georgia, one; Benjamin Lincoln of M assachusetts, one; Edward T e lfa ir of Georgia, one. While some of these non-Adams b a llo ts represent F e d e ra list "insurance votes" to prevent an e le c to ra l t i e , others belonged to A n ti-F e d e ra list e le c to r s , who simply favored d iffe re n t candidates. Through th e ir e f f o r ts to work fo r Adams and even to drop some votes to ensure th a t he would come in behind Washington, the F e d e ra lists demonstrated a rudimentary consensus ^Hamilton to James Wilson, January 25, 1789; Jeremiah Wadsworth to Hamilton, February [5-28], 1789, 1n S y re tt and Cooke, Papers o f Alexander Hamilton, V, 247-49, 252. Obadlah Gore to TlmotFiy P ickering, February 28, 1789, Timothy Pickering Papers, Massachusetts H isto ric a l Society. 8 nomination.^ P artisa n s tru g g le out of which the two p a rtie s would come developed during Washington's f i r s t term. H amilton's program was opposed by the group which centered around Jefferso n and Madison, and Washington was made even w earier of h is unsought task of leading the nation by the growth o f factio n al s p i r i t and attack s against him. The f i r s t President decided, th e re fo re , to r e t i r e a f te r one term and to ld some of h is close a s s o c ia te s , v irtu a lly a ll of whom, Including Madison and J e ffe rs o n , urged him to run fo r re -e le c tio n . Madison thought none of the possible successors--he named Adams, Je ffe rso n , and John Jay—would be s a tis f a c to r y , Jefferso n because he probably could not be persuaded to run and the others because o f various 10 d e fic ie n c ie s . In May, Hamilton commented on the growing rival factio n c o lle c tin g around Madison and J e ffe rs o n , observing th a t he f e l t the Secretary o f S tate was aiming a t the p re s id e n tia l c h a i r . ^ C le a rly , however, the burgeoning Democratic-Republican factio n p referred fo r the moment to remain out of the contest fo r the presidency and would not challenge Washington 1f he chose to seek th e o ffic e again. I f the P resident could be Induced to r e lin - 9 Svend P ete rsen , A S t a t i s t i c a l H istory o f the American P re si d en tial Elections (New York, 1963), 11 10 "Substance o f a Conversation with the P resid en t," May 25, 1892, James Madison Papers, Library o f Congress. ^H am ilton to Edward C arrington, May 26. 1792, in Henry Cabot Lodge, e d . , The Works of Alexander Hamilton (12 v o ls ., New York: Putnam's Sons, 19o4), IX, 517. quish another four years o f his much-desired retirem e n t, the nomina tio n would again be through b ip a rtisa n consensus, th is time in a somewhat more p a rtisa n s e ttin g . But the Jefferson-M adison forces were w illin g to co n test the v1ce-pres1dency, and even the F e d e ra list party heard in June th a t George Clinton was to be the opposition candidate, 12 though the question was not to t a ll y s e tt le d by th is time. By mid-June, i t seemed as though Washington would play a w aiting game, one in which he deferred the fin al decision u n til the la s t possible moment. Asked about the question of tim ing, Madison re p lie d th a t the determ ination could be delayed u n til around the middle of September and continued to urge th a t the P resident seek 13 re -e le c tio n . By the end o f J u ly , Hamilton Indicated some s lig h t progress 1n his e f f o r ts to convince Washington of his in d isp e n sa b ility to the success of the young Republic, in s is tin g th a t public opinion 14 would again produce a unanimous e le c to ra l mandate. Meanwhile, the Federal v ic e -p re sid e n tia l question seemed s e ttle d in favor of Adams--provided, of course, th a t Washington chose to e n te r the race and thereby prevented the V ice-President from reaching higher on the p o litic a l totem pole. There was a rumor th a t the New Englander 12 General [P h ilip ] Schuyler to James Madison, June 10, 1792, James Madison Papers, Library o f Congress. Alexander Hamilton to John Adams.June 25, 1792, in Charles Francis Adams, The Works o f John Adams, Second P resid en t o f the United S tates (10 v o ls ., Boston, 1850- T55F)tVMr,"514.---- ---------------------------- 13 Madison to Washington (copy), June 21, 1792, James Madison Papers, Library o f Congress. 14 Hamilton to Washington, July 30, 1792, in Lodge, Works of Hamilton, X, 7-9. would stay out o f the game, but such reports were viewed with d is b e lie f by most. On the opposition s id e , the le a d e rs, e s p e c ia lly 1n the South, generally agreed on C linton, and John J . Beckley noted a t the beginning o f August th a t some F ed eralists 1n Pennsylvania were trying to encourage Thomas M ifflin , a notable Democratic-Republican o f th a t s t a t e , to become a candidate. The Federal ta c tic ia n s hoped th a t a s p l i t in the opposition ranks would ensure the defeat of C linton, 15 whose success they were beginning to fear. But i t was not to be M ifflin who disturbed the comparatively placid waters on which the Clinton ship s a ile d . The Republican leaders had larg ely agreed by consensus on C linton, but as the cam- j paign neared i t s end, Aaron B urr, also of New York, sought to torpedo the e x istin g c r a f t and replace 1t with his own. The u p s ta rt candidate found e sp e c ia lly f e r t i l e ground fo r his seeds of ambition in h is home s ta te and 1n Pennsylvania. Some F e d e ra lists feared t h a t , i f the southern portion of the opposition also decided to support B urr, he night menace Adams' chances.16 Hamilton, however, thought the Burr movement was a diversion to help Clinton or possibly even to sneak in Jefferso n as V ice-P resid en t.17 15 Thomas Jefferso n to James Madison, July 3, 1792; John J . Beckley to Madison, July 3, 1792, James Madison Papers, Library of Congress. 16Rufus King to Gouvemeur M orris, September 1, 1792; King to , September 30, 1792, in Charles R. King, e d . , The Life and Correspondence o f Rufus Kinq (6 v o ls .. New York: Putnam's Sons, T89T-1900JYT, 425‘ -'27',' '430. 17Hamilton to C. C. Pinckney, October 10, 1792; Hamilton to John S te e le , October 15, 1792, in Lodge, Works o f Hamilton, X, 22-27. 11 At the end o f September, a committee of the New York Republicans moved to win the southern wing, and hence the p a rty 's nomination, to Burr. The spokesmen in s is te d th a t Burr was favored by Empire s ta te Republicans and th a t Governor Clinton had to ld them he did not wish to run. Moreover, they f e l t the governorship was of g re a te r importance than the vice-presidency, and Clinton had j u s t been re e le c te d . In ad d itio n , they s a id , l i t t l e had been done in the North fo r C linton, but considerable had been accomplished fo r Burr, thus in d ic a tin g th a t he would lik e ly receive more support in th a t area. Hence, they requested the support of Madison and Monroe in th is p ro je c t, s p e c ific a lly in arranging for the opposition group in V irginia and the r e s t o f the South to agree on Burr. The New Yorkers, however, pledged themselves to unity and would support Clinton i f the V irginia duumvirate thought i t b est. But the northern men hoped th e ir wishes on th is question would receive serious c o n s id e ra tio n J 8 John Nicholson, a noted Pennsylvanian, sought to serve as one of the close lin k s between the New York and V irginia groups, and he wrote Madison from Philadelphia expressing the northern viewpoint, noting th a t while Clinton p referred to decline in favor of Burr, he did not refuse 19 to serv e. Burr him self sought to cement the desired re la tio n sh ip s by sending Melancthon Smith to the cap ital to neg o tiate in his 18 Melancthon Smith and M . W ille tt to Madison and Monroe, September 30, 1792, James Monroe Papers, L ibrary o f Congress. 19 Nicholson to Madison, October 3, 1792, James Madison Papers, Library of Congress. b e h a lf.20 Madison wrote Monroe on the proposed change of the Republicans' v ic e-p resid en tial nominee and observed th a t the request came from e i th e r C lin to n 's wish not to run, the d esire of the New Yorkers to keep him as governor, or a preference fo r Burr. Whatever the cause, Madison could not agree to go along with the plan, because Burr was too young 1n terms o f age and public se rv ic e . Besides, the p o te n tia l can d id ate's p rin c ip le s were not s u f f ic ie n tly well known to run him fo r the second highest o f f ic e . To replace Adams with someone of B urr's re la tiv e ly lim ited experience, Madison thought, would not be appreciated by the people and would thus f a il to achieve the o b je ct desired by the Republicans. Hence, he disapproved of the p ro je c t to change p o litic a l horses 1n the middle of the race, I n s is tin g th a t i f the New Yorkers p e rsiste d in th is e f f o r t , the party goal would be defeated. Moreover, Madison doubted whether any s ig n ific a n t e f f o r ts actu ally had been made in the E ast, or perhaps even in New York, fo r B urr's candidacy. The two V irginians would have to act soon, because i f the measure were to be blocked, i t should be halted as soon as p o ssib le. The s itu a tio n was obviously ra th e r d e lic a te , but Burr might be m o llified by assurances o f confidence and good w ill. Yet, the decision was d i f f i c u l t to make, and i t was hard fo r them to a c t in the b est manner on the amount of inform ation a v a ila b le . What should they do, fo r in sta n c e , i f th e plan to run Clinton were aban- 20 Burr to Nicholson, October 7, 1792, Aaron Burr M iscellaneous M anuscripts, New York Public L ibrary. Robert R. Livingston to Edward Livinqston, October 1, 1792, 1n Georqe D anqerfleld, Chancellor Robert R. Livingston o f New York, 1746-1813 (New York, I960), 255. 13 doned elsewhere?2^ Monroe f e l t th a t the s itu a tio n was considerably em barrassing, but he agreed with Madison th a t the New York s u b s titu tio n scheme should be quashed. Before w ritin g the answer, however, he f e l t they should meet to g eth er to discuss the various ram ifica tio n s. In the meanwhile, the two men should think about the qu estio n , though he believed th e ir opinions would remain the same. Accordingly, Madison and Monroe met, confirmed th e ir i n i t i a l opinions on the question, and drafted a re p ly .22 They wrote B u rr's agent, Melancthon Smith, th a t C lin to n 's g re a te r public exposure would seem to in d icate he would get more e le c to ra l votes than Burr. Any attem pt to make the change in candidates would involve more ris k than the p o te n tial gain j u s t i f i e d . 2^ But before the Monroe-Madison m issive l e t t e r reached i t s d e stin a tio n , an important meeting had already been held in which i t was decided to drop the Burr movement. On the evening of October 16, B urr's n e g o tia to r, Smith, representing the New York Republicans, met with the most Important party leaders in P hiladelphia to decide d e fin ite ly on the v ic e -p re sid e n tia l candidate. The meeting determined to go a ll out fo r Clinton and to dismiss any idea of running Burr. Smith promised the complete co-operation of his s t a t e 's Republicans and asked th a t the decision be tran sm itted to Monroe and Madison. 2^Madison to Monroe, October 9, 1792, James Madison Papers, Library of Congress. 22Monroe to Madison, October 11, 1792, James Madison Papers, Library of Congress. 23Monroe and Madison to Smith, October 17, James Madison Papers, New York Public L ibrary. 12 b e h a lf.20 Madison wrote Monroe on the proposed change of th e Republicans' v ic e -p re s id e n tia l nominee and observed th a t the request came from e i th e r C lin to n 's wish not to run, the d e s ire o f th e New Yorkers to keep him as governor, or a preference fb r Burr. Whatever the cause, Madison could not agree to go along with the p la n , because Burr was too young In terms o f age and public s e rv ic e . B esides, the p o te n tia l can d id ate 's p rin c ip le s were not s u f f ic ie n tly w ell known to run him fo r the second h ig h e st o f f ic e . To replace Adams with someone of B urr's r e la tiv e ly lim ited experience, Madison thought, would not be appreciated by the people and would thus f a l l to achieve th e o b je c t d esired by the Republicans. Hence, he disapproved o f the p ro je c t to change p o litic a l horses 1n the middle o f the ra c e , In s is tin g th a t 1f the New Yorkers p e rs is te d In th is e f f o r t , th e p arty goal would be defeated. Moreover, Madison doubted whether any s ig n if ic a n t e f f o r ts a c tu a lly had been made 1n the E ast, or perhaps even 1n New York, fo r B u rr's candidacy. The two V irginians would have to a c t soon, because 1f the measure were to be block 1, I t should be h a lte d as soon as p o ssib le . The s itu a tio n was obviously ra th e r d e lic a te , but Burr might be m o llifie d by assurances o f confidence and good w i l l . Y et, the decision was d i f f i c u l t to make, and 1t was hard fo r them to a c t In th e b est manner on the amount of Inform ation a v a ila b le . What should they do, fo r In stan ce , 1f th e plan to run Clinton were aban- 20 Burr to Nicholson, October 7, 1792, Aaron Burr M iscellaneous M anuscripts, New York P ublic L ibrary. Robert R. L ivingston to Edward L ivingston, October 1, 1792, 1n George D angerfleld, C hancellor Robert R. Livingston o f New York, 1746-1813 (New York, I960)', 255. 14 This conclave In the c a p ita l was an Im portant ste p 1n the growing e f f o r ts to b u ild the p arty gen erally and to co llab o rate 1n deciding the group's candidates s p e c if ic a lly . In th is In stan ce , the p a rty worked by the consensus o f a l l se c tio n a l elem ents, which was reached, as noted, by m eetings, Informal d isc u ssio n s, and correspondence.24 Washington postponed h is fin a l decision on the presidency fo r an agonizingly long period. Je ffe rso n ta lk ed with him a t the begin ning o f O ctober, and the c h ie f executive s a id he s t i l l had not made up h is mind.25 The F e d e ra lis ts , o f co u rse, n e c e ssa rily campaigned 1n the hope and b e l ie f th a t t h e i r le a d e r 's fin a l determ ination would be p o s itiv e . By mid-October, Hamilton seemed convinced th a t a ll would be w e ll, p re d ic tin g another unanimous e le c to ra l to ta l fo r Washington. The Treasury S ecretary a lso worked fo r Adams' candidacy, even to the ex te n t o f communicating to the southern wing of the F e d e ra lists the consensus o f the northern and middle s ta t e portions of the p a rty to support the V ice-P resid en t.2® Inherent w ith in such a favorable rep o rt was an Implied request fo r F e d e ra lis t consensus throughout the n atio n . The p a rty united well behind the Washlngton-Adams ti c k e t. The P re s id e n t, o f course, received the unanimous support of the e l e c to r s , both F e d e ra lis t and Republican, w hile a ll 77 F e d e ra lis t votes fo r 24John Beckley to James Madison, October 17, James Madison Papers, New York P ublic L ibrary. 25Je ffe rso n to Madison, October 1, 1792, James Madison P apers, L ibrary o f Congress. 26Ham11ton to John S te e le , October 15, 1792, William Gaston Papers, Southern H is to ric a l C o lle c tio n , U niversity o f North C arolina. 15 second place went to Adams. The Republicans presented a fro n t only s lig h t ly le ss u n ifie d : the votes f o r V ice-President ( a c tu a lly , the e l e c to r s ' second vote f o r P re sid e n t) to ta le d 50 fo r C lin to n , w hile four favored Je ffe rso n and one named Burr. Such general consensus 1n plan and degree o f u n ity 1n p ra c tic e were ra th e r Impressive a t th is 27 e a rly stage o f party development. The y e a r 1792 w itnessed the l a s t b ip a rtis a n agreement on the p re sid e n tia l nomination and e le c tio n . From th is p o in t, the presidency was to be h o tly co n tested . During W ashington's second term , p o li tic a l s t r i f e Increased ra p id ly , and by th e e le c tio n of 1796 the two p a r tie s had more c le a rly emerged. J e ffe rs o n , o f course, had been an Important fig u re 1n the e a rly development o f the opposition p a rty , but Madison 1s generally accorded le ss c r e d it than he deserves fo r h is ro le 1n the growth o f the Democrat1c-Republicans. In many re s p e c ts, 1n f a c t , Madison was a c tu a lly more s ig n if i c a n t than Jefferso n 1n building th e p a rty . At the end o f 1794, J e ffe rs o n demonstrated h is appreciation of Madison's ro le by Implying 1n a l e t t e r th a t h is V irginia colleague should consider becoming a p re s id e n tia l candidate. Such a move f a il e d a ,to m a te ria liz e , o f co u rse, u n til Madison had helped to put J e ffe rso n him self 1n th e p re s id e n tia l c h a ir. But one question demanded an answer before the Republicans could count on having a serio u s con 27 P etersen , A S t a t i s t i c a l H istory o f the American P re s id e n tia l E le c tio n s, 11. 16 te n d er for th e top o f f ic e : would Washington run again?*8 As e le c tio n y e a r drew n e a r, th e F e d e ra lis ts began to view Je ffe rso n as the probable candidate o f the o p p o sitio n . One member of the p arty In power complained th a t 1 f the P resid en t declined to serve a th i r d term , J e ffe rso n would e n te r the ra c e , no doubt w ith co n sid er able support. Uhder such circum stances, I t was th e duty o f a ll F e d e ra lis ts who had W ashington's e a r to work vigorously to encourage him to postpone h is withdrawal from th e p o li tic a l scene fo r y e t another four y e a rs. In add itio n to securing the government fo r another term , the P re s id e n t's continuance 1n o ffic e would provide the F e d e ra lists w ith enough time to so lv e many o f the problems which aright be used ag a in st them 1n 1796.29 The b itte r n e s s among Republicans ag ain st the Jay T reaty w ith England caused p a rtis a n v i t r i o l to reach a new peak 1n 1796, and Washington grew In creasin g ly d isg u sted with th e hard fa c ts o f p arty l i f e , thereby helping to stren g th en h is resolve to follow 1n advance Harry Truman's o ft-q u o ted remark about the warmth o f th e executive k itch en . Indeed, th e P re s id e n t's sk in grew p ro g ressiv ely more s e n s itiv e as the h e a t 1n the p o li tic a l cook-house became s u b s ta n tia lly more In te n se . Some F e d e ra lis ts , o f course, p re fe rre d —e i t h e r con scio u sly o r otherw ise—to overlook the p ro b a b ility th a t Washington *8J e ffe rso n to Madison, December 28, 1794, 1n Matthew L. Davis, Memoirs o f Aaron B urr (2 v o ls ., New York, 1836-1837), I I , 77. For an In te r e s tin g account o f th e re la tio n s h ip between, and e f f o r ts o f , the two men, see Adrienne Koch, J e ffe rs o n and Madison: The G reat C ollaboration (New York, 1964). 29Ralph Izard to George Read, October 12, 1795, Ralph Izard P apers, South C arollnlana L ib rary , U niversity o f South C arolina. would leave o f f i c e , but leading Republicans, w ith Madison 1n the vanguard, were quick to begin planning to brin g Je ffe rso n back In to p o li tic s as a p re s id e n tia l co n ten d er.30 By l a t e February o f 1796, Madison, re a liz in g the task might be d i f f i c u l t , had la id h is plans to g et the e rstw h ile S ecretary o f S ta te back In to th e p o litic a l arena, though th e re had been no choice as y e t o f a running m ate.3* Adams was the lo g ical F e d e ra list p re s id e n tia l can d id ate, but some thought he would not be run. The V ice-P resident him self wrote his w ife 1n mid-February o f e le c tio n y e a r th a t John Ja y , Alexander Hamilton, and P atrick Henry were a lso p o te n tia l contenders. Near the end o f March, the Republican heat generated 1n the F e d e ra lis t g alley seemed as though 1 t might be on th e verge o f causing the exodus of Adams as well as Washington—o r s o , a t l e a s t , the V ice-President appeared to h in t In a l e t t e r to h is w ife. Various Republican n o ta b le s, however, assumed th a t Adams would be the F e d e ra lis t hopeful, as Indeed he would be, d esp ite h is numerous m isgivings.32 I t should be pointed o u t, however, th a t Hamilton made an e a rly s t a r t 1n his scheme to prevent Adams from claim ing the gold rin g . ^H enry Tazewell to John Ambler, January 24, April 4 , 1796, John Ambler P apers, L ibrary o f Congress. William Plumer to Jeremiah Smith (copy), February 19, 1796, William Plumer Papers, L ibrary of Congress. 3*James Madison to James Monroe, February 26, 1796, James Madison Papers, L ibrary o f Congress. 32john Adams to Abigail Adams, March 25, |p r 1 l 9 , 1796, Adams Family P apers, M assachusetts H is to ric a l S ociety. Joseph C harles, "Adams and Je ffe rs o n : The O rigins o f the American P arty System," William and Mary Q u a rte rly , Third S e rie s , XII (J u ly , 1955), 413-14. 18 Hamilton thought f i r s t o f P atrick Henry, th e former V irginia Ant1- F e d e ra lls t and Revolutionary le a d e r, who had moved toward the conservative camp. I f he wished to run him openly fo r P re s id e n t, Hamilton doubtless f e l t t h a t , among o th e r th in g s, 1t would be good to oppose J e ffe rs o n , th e V irginian, with another from th e Old Dominion, 1n hopes o f s p l i t t i n g not only th a t s t a t e b u t the South, where Federalism was r e la tiv e ly weaker. I f Henry were being sought fo r the second o ffic e on the public s l a t e , from which p o sitio n Hamilton could promote him fo r f i r s t p la c e , then the c ra fty New Yorker obviously f e l t th e need to balance the t i c k e t geographically. Tact was v i t a l , so the e rstw h ile Treasury S ecretary requested John M arshall, another man o f the Old Dominion, to ask d is c re e tly 1f Henry were In te re s te d . Rufus King, another of the few leaders asso ciated with the plan to run Henry, seconded H am ilton's request fo r M arsh all's a s s is ta n c e . I t was decided th a t Henry would be kept from knowledge o f the plan by making the Idea appear to be one which o rig in a te d close to home. A ccordingly, Marshall e n lis te d Henry Lee, a confidant o f Henry, to make the I n i t i a l approach. The f i r s t response was le s s than encouraging, but Marshall him self promised to mention the m atter 1n person to the p o te n tia l candidate 1n Richmond 1n la te May. 33 M a r s h a l l to Hamilton, April 10, 1796; Marshall to King, April 19, 1796, Alexander Hamilton P apers, L ibrary o f Congress. The more tr a d itio n a l view Is th a t Hamilton and h is Intim ate c o lla b o ra to rs thought a l l along o f Henry as a v ic e -p re s id e n tia l candidate to be promoted fo r th e f i r s t o f f ic e . See, fo r example. Stephen G. K urtz, The Presidency o f John Adams; The Collapse o f Federalism , 1795-1800 { P h ilad e lp h ia . 1957). 10Z-4: Manning J . Dauer, th e Adams F e d e ra lists (B altim ore, 1953), 95-96. By c o n tra s t, L isle Rose In d ica tes th a t 19 Meanwhile, King began to re a liz e th a t th e re was l i t t l e chance of persuading the re lu c ta n t Henry and Instead suggested Thomas Pinckney, who would a rriv e back In America th a t y e a r a f t e r successful tre a ty n e g o tia tio n s w ith Spain. Indeed, various F e d e ra lis ts 1n P h ila d elp h ia were beginning to accept th e Idea of Adams fo r P resid en t and e i th e r Henry o r Pinckney fo r the second sp o t. Hamilton concurred w ith King, now even hoping the scheme to run Henry would be re je c te d so th a t the p arty could back the trium phant diplom at, whose rece n t e f f o r t s —unlike John J q y 's —had n e tte d him considerable p o p u la rity . Several weeks l a t e r , Marshall rep o rted th a t a conversation w ith Henry Ind icated h is unw illingness to run; the o rig in o f the p la n , however, remained a s e c r e t. Hamilton and h is cohorts were now fre e to nominate Pinckney. But 1 t quickly became c le a r th a t Adams could not be shunted a s id e , so during th e s p rin g , I f not b e fo re , Hamilton had c e rta in ly come to accept the V ice-P resident—however re lu c ta n tly —as th e t i t u l a r le a d e r 34 o f th e t i c k e t , w hile hoping to sneak the second man 1n ahead. the small Hamiltonian cliq u e wanted Henry to head the t i c k e t openly as an a lte r n a tiv e to the New Englander: see Rose, Prologue to Democracy: The F e d e ra lists In the South, 1789-1800 (Lexington, Kentucky, 196ft), 123-26. A ctu ally , the documentary evidence Is In s u f f i c i e n t to j u s t i f y e i t h e r view conclusively. Subsequent c o rre s pondence between Hamilton and King (see footnote 34) h i n t s , however, th a t the scheme Involved Henry as a v ic e -p re s id e n tia l contender a l l along. H am ilton's fin a l reso lu tio n o f th is question Is known fo r c e r t a in , and hence a debate over how he a rriv e d a t the so lu tio n Is le ss c r i t i c a l than 1 t would otherw ise be. 3*K1ng to Hamilton, Mqy 2, 1796; Hamilton to King, May 4 , 1796, Alexander Hamilton P apers, L ibrary o f Congress. K urtz, The Presidency o f John Adams, 102-3. Chauncey Goodrich to O liv e r W olcott, S r ., M ay 6 , 1796, In George G ibbs, e d . , Memoirs o f th e A dm inistrations o f Washington and John Adams. Edited Trom the Papers o f tiliv e r W olcott, S ecretary o f the Treasury (2 v o ls ., New York, 1846), I , 337. As 1796 progressed, I t became increasingly lik ely th a t Washington would r e t ir e , and some reported 1n April th a t the President had openly declared such an Intention to several people. The p a rtie s continued to plan th e ir campaigns based on the expected absence of Washington, but the fin a l decision was ty p ic ally slow 1n being 35 reached and publicized. By early May, however, Adams believed th a t congressional acceptance of the Jay Treaty by a close vote la te 1n April a f te r a v io len t and abusive stru g g le ensured the P resid en t's 36 retirem ent. Others thought such ta lk was Id le rumor. But by Mqy, there was general ta lk th a t Washington would resig n , and the President him self had by la te June determined d e fin ite ly to step down. H e p riv ately wished th a t his decision and farewell address had already been made p u b lic; then a ll question would have been d isp elled and the p o litic a l f ie ld cle arly opened fo r a ll contenders. W hen Hamilton was asked when the retirem ent should be announced, he rep lied th a t the time should be delayed u n til the la s t moment: about two months before the electo rs were to meet. I f a c r is is arose 1n the meantime, the President could choose to stay at the helm. During the Interim , the two p a rtie s would campaign 3®John Beckley to D e W1tt C linton, April 11, 1796, D e W1tt Clinton Papers, Columbia U niversity. John Langdon to James Monroe, April 12, 1796, James Monroe Papers, Library of Congress. 36 John Adams to Abigail Adams, M ay 3, 1796, Adams Family Papers, Massachusetts H isto rical Society. Mary Pinckney to Mrs. M orris, M ay 8, 1796, Pinckney Family Papers, South Carolina H isto rical Society. 21 conditionally on the basis of Washington's anticipated withdrawal. But the Sage of Montlcello was a relu ctan t candidate; he was not even consulted before being th ru st Into the race. With Madison 1n the vanguard, Republican notables 1n Washington agreed to run the former Secretary of S ta te . By the middle of May, Madison seemed to feel he could count on Jefferson as the Republican contender against Adams and la te r even avoided personal contact w ith him so th at the standard-bearer would be unable to p ro te st his candidacy during possible moments of re tic e n c e .88 But the choice fo r the vice- presidency was s t i l l unsettled fo r both p a rtie s . One F ed eralist even predicted a t th is point th a t Adams and Jefferson would fin ish the highest two but thought the second man would refuse to serve. Another F ed eralist said th at some Republican leaders attempted to decide the thorny problem of th e ir second m an a t a meeting 1n Philadelphia during May. The p a rtic ip a n ts 1n th is reported meeting, while o f course accepting Jefferson as th e ir p resid en tial candidate, were unable to agree on his running mate. The F ed eralist account of the gathering Indicates th at Aaron Burr, John Langdon, Pierce B u tler, and Robert R. Livingston were considered as potential contenders. Livingston supposedly stood highest among th is q u a rte t, largely because of his a rtic le s against the Jay Treaty, while the principal objection to B utler was his southern a f f ilia tio n which prevented a geographically balanced tic k e t. Burr supposedly was considered as 38 <)ames Madison to James Monroe, M ay 14, 1796, James Madison Papers, Library of Congress. 22 u n settled In his p o litic s , and Langdon was thought to have l i t t l e Influence. Another Federal d escrip tio n said the group decided to run Burr, but such Information was In co rrect. Since the source generally cited to demonstrate the existence o f th is meeting 1s from a F e d e ra list, however, the account may be questioned as to I ts accuracy. I t Is e n tire ly possible th a t Republican co-operation on th is Issue was le ss co-ordinated than the rep o rt suggests. I f there were a sp e c ific congressional conclave of Republicans 1n 1796, 1 t appears to have been less than a stru ctu red caucus; whatever form Republican collaboration assumed 1n 1796—whether one gathering or various Informal discussions among the p a rty 's congressmen—1t was ce rta in ly a s trid e toward a formal congressional nomination, a bridge across which party machinery moved 1n the journey from consensus to formal and public caucuses. Despite stro n g er organization by 1796, the Republicans were unable to make th is more organized attem pt to achieve a u n ified nominations pol 1 cy—whether by activ e consensus or 3 Q rudimentary caucus—work fo r them. 3 ^W illiam Smith to Ralph Iz a rd , M ay 18, 1796, 1n Ulrich B. P h illip s , e d ., "South Carolina F ed eralist Correspondence, 1789-1797," American H isto rical Review, XIV (Ju ly , 1909), 780. Lyman H. B utter f ie ld , Leonard C. Faber, and Wendell D. G a rre tt, e d s ., Diary and Autobiography of John Adams (4 v o ls ., Cambridge, M ass., 1962), I I I , 228-29. William Nlsbet Chambers, P o litic a l P arties 1n a N ew Nation: The American Experience, 1776-1809 (New York, 1963), 116-17. Noble £. Cunnlnqham, J r . , The Jefferso n ian Republicans: The Formation o f Party O rganization. T789-1801 (Chapel HllT, N.C.. 1957), 91, 162.” I f th ere were a sp e c ific Republican caucus 1n 1796, one would expect to fin d some evidence to th a t e f f e c t 1n Republican sources. N o such m aterial appears to e x is t, however. Indeed, the question o f Je ffe rso n 's running mate would p e rs is t throughout the campaign. In June, Robert R. Livingston talked lik e he wanted the job and spoke ra th e r disparagingly of both Burr and Clinton, the o th er most lik e ly candidates.40 The c lo se st thing to a choice, however, f e ll upon Burr. John Beckley, noting some advice to use L ivingston's name fo r V ice-President 1n a diversionary capacity fo r some areas, wrote Madison th at the Republicans o f Pennsylvania were so lid ly In favor of B u rr's pretensions and th a t the N ew Yorker should be the union candidate of the party. This Information had also been carried to Kentucky and Tennessee. While Beckley thought p arts of the South were s e t fo r Burr, he was esp ecially concerned th at th ere be unity fo r him 1n V irg in ia.4^ Despite th is plea fo r concerted action 1n supporting Burr fo r the vice-presidency and agreement 1n some segments of the party to go along, f u ll consensus could not be arranged. So In d efin ite was the situ a tio n and so many were the rumors th a t one prominent northern F ed eralist even thought as la te as the beginning o f July th a t the Republicans had chosen Livingston as th e ir second man.42 The F ederalists apparently attempted no sp e c ific meeting on 40Robert R. Livingston to Edward Livingston, June 12, 1796, Robert R. Livingston Papers, New-York H istorical Society. 4^John Beckley to James Madison, June 20, 1796, James Madison Papers, N ew York Public Library. 42Hubbard Tqylor to James Madison, Ju ly 16, 1796, James Madison Papers, Library o f Congress. Christopher Gore to John Quincy Adams, July 5, 1796, Adams Family Papers, Massachusetts H isto rical Society. the question o f th e ir nominations. At |e a s t there seems to be no evidence o f a gathering equivalent to the reported Republican quasi- caucus, and any conclave o f party leaders was almost surely convened on a re la tiv e ly loose and Irre g u la r b a sis. Whatever the degree of agreement among F ed eralists 1n the cap ital before Congress adjourned In the spring o f 1796, 1 t was apparently reached through e sse n tia lly Informal discussions ra th e r than a t a sp e c ific summit meeting o f th e ir congressmen. Despite the widespread feelin g 1n many c irc le s th a t Washington would r e tir e , some diehard admirers of the President grasped a t the hope he would continue to bear the burden ra th er than seek the Id y llic scene o f his e s ta te . A s noted, the F ed eralists had generally agreed early In the game th a t Adams would be th e ir p resid en tial candidate 1f the lure o f Mt. Vernon overcame the pleas fo r a th ird term P resid en t. A s also mentioned, Hamilton, Rufus King, John M arshall, and a few others Investigated the prospect o f running P atrick Henry fo r President o r V ice-President. W hen th is p o litic a l s a fa ri fa ile d to find a man, the Hamiltonians turned fo r a v ice-p resid en tial candidate they could s u rre p titio u s ly push fo r the p resid en tial ch air to Thomas Pinckney o f South C arolina, who was out of the country, and hence hardly In a po sitio n to refuse—not th a t he would have, anyway. But esta b lish in g consensus on Pinckney throughout the party was a gradual process. The leaders In Philadelphia gave the question considerable atten tio n In the spring and seemingly agreed to support Pinckney on an Adams s la te . Despite some ta lk among various Republicans th a t some of Hamilton's men might try to sneak him onto the tic k e t, Hamilton him self by June—sh o rtly a fte r the Henry scheme d e fin ite ly d isin te g ra te d —was 25 43 working to spread the gospel o f an Adams-P1nckney tic k e t. But these tid in g s regarding the second place had not been disseminated to a ll the F ed eralist hinterlands by the f i r s t p a rt of July.** Y et, by th a t time the Hamiltonian retin u e had taken steps to obtain through p arty leaders 1n South Carolina assurances from Pinckney's friends th a t he would agree to run. His asso ciates refused to commit him Immediately, though William L. Smith reported th at he hoped to be able to s e ttle the point w ithin a few weeks, Inasmuch as Pinckney was expected to arriv e 1n Charleston soon. Meanwhile, Smith advised th a t the C aro lin ian 's name be circu lated among eastern F ed eralists to build support 1n the expectation th at the nomination would be accepted. I f Pinckney did refu se. Smith was a t a loss to know where to find another South Carolina man to balance the southern h a lf o f the g eopolitical seesaw. He feared th a t both Charles C. Pinckney and Ralph Izard would be unw illing to carry the John S teele to John Haywood, July 3, 1796, Ernest Haywood C ollection, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North C arolina. John Beckley to James Madison, June 20, 1796, James Madison Papers, N ew York Public Library. William L. Smith to Rufus King, July 23, 1796, In C.R. King, Life and Correspondence o f Rufus King, I I , 66. Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe (copy), July 10, 1746, Thomas Jefferson Papers, Library o f Congress. Some analysts I n s is t th a t there was a formal F ed eralist meeting. For example, John C. M iller 1n h is volume, The F ed eralist Era, 1789-1801 (New York, Evanston, and London, I960), says th a t a F ed eralist congressional caucus was h eld , but he presents no evidence to ju s tif y such an assertio n (p .200). **Chr1stopher Gore to John Quincy Adams, July 5 , 1796, Adams Family Papers, Massachusetts H isto rical Society. 26 v1ce-pres1dent1al banner.45 The somewhat enigmatic sta tu s o f W ashington's fin a l p o litic a l Intentions continued to haunt a few F ed eralists and encourage o th ers. Despite the abundance o f ta lk suggesting the P resid en t's w ithdraw al, John Adams thought perhaps the ch ie f executive might hold up the publication o f h is decision u n til the elec to rs were chosen, thus 46 providing opportunity fo r a th ird term I f the public demanded. In August and early September, some noteworthy F ed eralists expressed th e ir wish th a t Washington would remain a t the helm.47 As the campaign entered the home s tr e tc h , there was s t i l l some uncertainty regarding who composed the fie ld o f p o litic a l steed s. Adams and Je ffe rso n , o f course, were known to the mass of people as the p resid en tial candidates, but the lack o f complete consensus among Republicans led some s t i l l to think 1n September th a t Robert R. Livingston was the p a rty 's asp iran t fo r V ice-President. In P h ilad el p hia, various reports about candidates were circ u la te d on th is sid e of the q u estio n .4® Thomas Pinckney was more widely known and accepted 45W1ll1am L. Smith to O liver W olcott, J r . , July 9 , 1796, O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Connecticut H isto rical Society. ^ B u tte rfie ld e t a l . , Diary and Autobiography o f John Adams, I I I , 228-29. 47W11l1am Vans Murray to James McHenry (photocopy), August 21, 1796, James McHenry Papers, Library o f Congress. Jonathan Dayton to O liver W olcott, J r . , September 6 , 1796, O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Connecticut H isto rical Society. O l i v e r W olcott, J r . , to Jonathan Dqyton, September 6 , 1796; Dayton to W olcott, September 15, 1796, O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Connecticut H isto rical Society. 27 as the second man on the F ed eralist tic k e t, though one rumor even Indicated the Carolinian would also be run by the Republicans fo r the AQ same po st. 7 Some In sid e rs, notably Hamilton, knew, o f course, th a t the Id y llic s e ttin g o f Mt. Vernon had already triumphed 1n Washington's mind over the prospects o f being frequently and unceremoniously excoriated 1n opposition c irc le s and newspapers. These men were able to p lo t campaign stra te g y even more boldly than th e ir fellows who were perhaps only h a lf safe (actu ally more than h a lf, but h a lf sounds b e tte r ). Indeed, William Vans Hurray was s t i l l talking of try in g to get the party to unite on a candidate as la te as September, suggesting th a t Adams' name could be d isc re e tly mentioned as a ra lly in g point to party members. Illu s tra tiv e o f the lack of In tra -p a rty communication and the need fo r F ed eralist co-ordinating e f f o r ts , some In Delaware were talking about John Jay as a contender 1n la te September, and a t the beginning o f November, Murray was s t i l l asking who was being run as the F ed eralist v ice-p resid en tial can d id ate.5* * The Hamiltonian phalanx, meanwhile, was le ss than delighted with Adams as the p a rty 's number one contender, and 1n a move which was a harbinger o f the F ed eralist s p lit 1n the next few y ears, they *9E. Edwards to James Monroe, September 11, 1796, James Monroe Papers, Library o f Congress. 50Murray to James McHenry (photocopy), September 9 , 1796; Murray to McHenry (ty p e sc rip ts), September 24, November 2 , 1796, James McHenry Papers, Library of Congress. 28 sought to bring In the o sten sib le v ice-p resid en tial hopeful ahead of the N ew Englander. P ublicly, they preached the electio n o f Adams as President and Pinckney as V ice-President and wanted two chances to beat Jeffe rso n ; p riv a te ly , the faction Intended s p e c ific a lly to reverse the roles o f the two candidates. The plan was to urge party reg u la rity In the North w ith the hope th a t Pinckney would get an equal number o f votes with Adams; 1n the South, 1t was thought Pinckney would win more e le c to rs , esp ecially from South C arolina, and thus fin ish ahead o f his northern p artn er. One weapon to be used In asking fo r equal Pinckney support 1n the North was th a t of sectional fe elin g : I f the C arolinian lo s t the vice-presidency because some northern s ta te s threw votes away, considerable m istru st would a rise between the northern and southern wings o f the p a rty .51 Hamilton had an advantage 1n being able to draw several v a rie tie s o f F ed eralists Into h is plan: those who stro n g ly believed 1n party re g u la rity and hoped to see Pinckney elected as V ice-President, those who f e l t 1 t was e sse n tia l fo r the party to have two weapons against Je ffe rso n , and those who, lik e Hamilton, hoped to sneak In Pinckney 51Ham11ton t o , [September?], 1796, 1n Lodge, Works of Hamilton, X, 195-96. Robert Troup to Rufus King, November 16, 1796; William Bingham to King, November 29, 1796, 1n C.R. King, Life and Correspondence o f Rufus King, I I , 110. O liver W olcott, J r . , to O liver W olcott, S r ., October 17, 1/96, In Gibbs, Memoirs of the Administra tio n s o f Washington and Adams. I , 387. Robert Goodloe Harper to Ralph Iz a rd , November 4 , 1796, In P h illip s , “South Carolina F ed eralist Correspondence,1 1 782-83. Jabez Hamnond, The H istory o f P o ll tlc a l P a rtie s In the S tate o f N ew York (2 v o ls ., Coopers town, N.Y., 184b), r , m - z----------------- 29 ahead of Adams e ith e r because they preferred the Carolinian on his own m erits or because they f e l t th is course would help prevent Je ffe rso n 's e le c tio n as V ice-President. Such a broad possible con stitu en cy doubtless encouraged the Hamiltonians* but 1f th e ir scheme to break the In te n t of the party consensus nominations were to succeed, 1t was absolutely esse n tia l th at the northern wing be convinced by arm tw istin g , back p a ttin g , or subterfuge to support the two candidates equally. Sometimes, to help gain the acquiescence o f firm Adams supporters, promises were made th a t the party would arrange to waste several votes 1n order to bring the N ew Englander 1n f i r s t . To aid the Hamiltonian stra te g y 1n another way, the F e d e ra list organ, the Gazette of the United S ta te s , published a s e rie s of a r tic le s somewhat c r itic a l o f Adams; some who supported the V ice-President denounced these attacks and warned against the problem which would accompany 52 a s p l i t 1n the p arty . The arguments against a divided party made comparatively l i t t l e Impression on the Hamiltonian junto. Robert Goodloe Harper, fo r example, wrote to Ralph Izard o f South Carolina 1n November In an attem pt to get Pinckney and his friends serio u sly In te rested In the presidency; Harper In siste d th a t the real reason Pinckney had been made a candidate was the hope he could be brought 1n ahead of ^R o b ert Goodloe Harper to Ralph Izard , November 4, 1796, 1n P h illip s , “South Carolina F ed eralist Correspondence," 782-83. Chauncey Goodrich to O liver W olcott, S r ., December 17, 1796; O liver Wolcott to O liver W olcott, S r ., October 16, 1796, In Gibbs, Memoirs o f the Adm inistrations o f Washington and Adams, I , 411, 387“ W olcott, S r., October 17, 1796, O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Connecticut H isto rical Society. See also Manning J . Oauer, The Adams F ed eralists (Baltim ore. 1953), 96-101. -------------------------------- 30 Adams. The Carolinian contender, Harper sa id , should not be perm itted to lis te n to some of his frien d s—or pretended frie n d s—who might advise him to abstain from the contest. Though o sten sib ly the second candidate, Pinckney was the p resid en tia l choice o f the Hamilton group fo r whom Harper spoke, and th is junto would s triv e for his elec tio n to the top post. Izard was urged to prosecute the plan vigorously.®3 In September, some V irginia F ed eralists attempted to cloud the campaign panorama by promoting P atrick Henry fo r P resident, a man who had already made him self a re je c t of th e Hamilton cliq u e. Doubtless these V irginians hoped to hurt Jefferson 1n h is home s ta te , but Henry quickly quashed th is un so licited nom ination.54 Jonathan Dayton, a F ed eralist of some n o te, Injected another variable Into the already confusing campaign 1n November. Thinking th at Adams' electio n was doubtful, he wrote to Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts with some speculations on how to keep Jefferson out of the p resid en tial ch air: the F ed eralist e le cto rs should give Burr th e ir second votes Instead of casting them fo r Pinckney and thereby bring the New Yorker 1n f i r s t . No doubt such a proposal—even by 53Harper to Izard , November 4, 1796, 1n P h illip s , "South Carolina F ed eralist Correspondence," 782-83. John Beckley perceived the Hamilton group's antipathy toward Adams and th e ir attem pt to en l i s t the aid o f the Pinckneys In the e le c to ra l scheme. Beckley to James Madison, October 15, 17, 1796, James Madison Papers, N ew York Public Library. 5*John J . Beckley to William Irv in e , October 4, 1796, William Irvine Papers, H istorical Society of Pennsylvania. one F e d e ra list—drove the knife o f fe a r deep Into Hamilton's h e art, because the former Treasury Secretary placed Burr a t the top of his 11st of p o litic a l undesirables. Sedgwick answered Dayton by urging the Implementation o f the F ed eralist plan to support Adams and Pinckney eq u ally , In sistin g th at the North should support the southern candidate fo r V ice-President In order to keep sectional harmony 1n the p arty. He f e lt th a t the southern F ed eralists would keep th e ir p a rt of the consensus bargain to support both the northern and southern candidates. In any event, Sedgwick f e l t th a t the F ed eralist votes which could be diverted to Burr would be In su ffic ie n t to win the o ffice fo r him, esp ecially since I t appeared th a t he would fa ll 55 sh o rt of united backing from the Republicans. At the la s t hour of the c o n test, renewed e ffo rts directed a t the South emanated from some 1n Pennsylvania, In an attem pt to promote the cause o f unified Republican support fo r Burr. John Beckley, how e v e r, 1n co n trast to his e a r lie r opinion, suggested to Madison the p o s s ib ility o f giving to Clinton h a lf of V irg in ia 's expected Republican e le c to ra l votes fo r second place. The explanation fo r such a change Is perhaps explained e ith e r by fear on Beckley's p a rt th at Burr might somehow come 1n ahead of Jefferson or th a t some southern Republicans might vote fo r Pinckney, as was rumored In various c ir c le s , thereby giving the C arolinian the m ajority. Thus, the cause fo r Republican 55Dayton to Sedgwick (co p ies), November 12, 13, 1796; Sedgwick to Dayton (copy), November 19, 1796; Sedgwick to Hamilton, November 19, 1796, Alexander Hamilton Papers, Library of Congress. 32 unity on the nominations lo s t one formerly close adherent, while gaining l i t t l e . 56 A s the time neared fo r the casting o f the e lecto ral v otes, Hamilton's troops continued to seek fu lfillm e n t of the c r itic a lly Important backing fo r Pinckney In the North. Additional encouragement to make these e ffo rts was found 1n rep o rts th a t many Republicans would support Pinckney with th e ir second votes because they p referred him to Adams, who might win otherw ise. The tem ptation to vote fo r Pinckney would be p a rtic u la rly poignant 1f they were to despair of 57 a Jefferso n victory before the e le c to ra l college choice. One Republican who heard these rumors wrote a hurried l e t t e r to Madison warming him th a t the Carolinian might come 1n ahead of a ll others 1f Republicans also c a st votes fo r him. I t 1s d if f ic u lt to know how many Republicans did e n te rta in serious thoughts of supporting Pinckney, but such a movement never m aterialized In any degree except In South C arolina, where F e d eralist Edward Rutledge worked hard to get the le g isla tu re to choose ele c to rs to ca st votes fo r a Plnckney-Jefferson 56Beckley to Madison, October 15, 1796, James Madison Papers, N ew York Public Library. See also David A llison to John Gray Blount, November 25, 1796, 1n Alice Barnwell Keith and William H. M asterson, e d s ., The John Gray Blount Papers (3 v o ls ., Raleigh, N. C ., 1952-1965), I I I , 1T?T V irginia Republicans fa ile d to take Beckley's advice about C linton. While only a sin g le Jefferson e le c to r voted fo r Burr, 15 supported Samuel Adams, 3 named C linton, and 1 favored George Washington. 5^Robert Goodloe Harper to Alexander Hamilton, November 4, 1796, Alexander Hamilton Papers, Library o f Congress. Stephen H1gg1nson to Alexander Hamilton, December 9, 1796, Alexander Hamilton Papers, Library o f Congress. William Vans Murray to James McHenry (type s c r ip t) , November 26, 1796, James McHenry Papers, Library o f Congress. Rose, Prologue to Democracy, 135-36. This book 1s a fin e study of - x iV iS a R 33 tic k e t.58 M assachusetts, as Adams' home s ta te , would be c r itic a l to the Pinckney cause fo r President. Hamilton wrote Stephen H1gg1nson 1n la te November to e n lis t his e ffo rts to persuade th a t s ta te 's e lecto rs to give equal support to the southern candidate. The Hamilton junto had reason to fe ar: ju s tifia b ly alarmed fo r the primacy o f Adams' position on the tic k e t, a m ajority planned to waste th e ir second votes. H1gg1nson, however, was s u ffic ie n tly capable 1n pressing the case fo r upholding the F ed eralist consensus 59 nominations to swing a ll but three o f the th irte e n e le c to rs. But elsewhere 1n N ew England, the word went fo rth from the Adams faction a f te r the e lec to rs had been selected th a t th e ir ch ief would win unless Pinckney beat him; the prudent thing to do under such circumstances was to throw away some b a llo ts from the Carolinian and thereby ensure the N ew Englander's success. This a ttitu d e prevailed despite the feelin g o f some 1n other sections th a t Pinckney was the only chance fo r a F ed eralist victory* The defection of some Adams e lec to rs from Pinckney In M assachusetts, Rhode Islan d , Connecticut, N ew Hampshire, and Maryland sealed the fa te o f the attempted Hamilton coup.50 The In sisten ce o f some F ed eralist e le c to rs to waste th e ir C O [Joseph Jones] to Madison, December 9 , 1796, James Madison Papers, Library o f Congress. eg Hlgglnson to Hamilton, December 9, 1796, Alexander Hamilton Papers, Library of Congress. 50Ur1ah Tracy to O liver W olcott, S r ., December 6 , 1796; Wolcott, S r ., to O liver W olcott, December 12, 1796, In Gibbs, Memoirs of the Adm inistrations of Washington and Adams, I , 407-9. Moss Kent to James Kent, December 10, 1796, James Kent Papers, Library o f Congress. 34 second vote was, 1n fa c t, Indispensable to the Adams cause: 1f a ll those who cast th e ir b a llo ts fo r the V ice-President had supported Pinckney as w ell, the Carolinian would have won the presidency. B y December 20, the Vice-President f e l t he would probably be moving up a notch a t the next Inauguration: " I t 1s supposed to be c ertain th a t Mr. Jefferson cannot be P[res1dent] and a narrow Squeak I t Is as the Boys say , whether he or P[1nckney] w ill be Daddy Vice . . . . I have been Dady [s ic ] Vice long enough."6^ Though John Adams did not view h is p resid en tial victory as an unmixed b lessin g , another member o f h is fam ily, John Quincy Adams, had considerable misgivings as w ell. Remarking th a t he was less than anxious to see h is fa th e r elected to the t r i a l s o f the highest o ffic e , the o ffsp rin g Issued a p la in tiv e and more personal p ro te st: "the more conspicuous he becomes 1n the world the more Incumbent I t w ill be upon m e to prove iqyself worthy to be h is son: I have already an heavy burthen on th a t account to b ear, and do not wish to see 1t Increased."62 W hen the ele c to ra l college votes were fin a lly tab u lated , the regression 1n party consensus on nominations received an expected setback. Though the two p o litic a l organizations were clo ser to com p le tin g th e ir journey from consensus nominations to caucus nominations 6*John Adams to Abigail Adams, December 20, 1796, Adams Family Papers, Massachusetts H istorical Society. 62John Quincy Adams to Louisa C. Adams, Ju ly 9, 1796, Adams Family Papers, Massachusetts H isto rical Society. than they had been 1n 1792, the effectiv en ess of th e ir e ffo rts was sig n ific a n tly reduced. Despite th e superabundance o f In trig u e , F ed eralist unity fared b e tte r 1n terms o f the fin a l ta lly than Repub lican In tra -p a rty co-operation: Pinckney received 59 votes, only 12 less than Adams—thanks In a large degree to Hamiltonian e f fo r ts —while Burr, the most s ig n ific a n t v ice-p resid en tial candidate of the opposi tio n , received only 30 b a llo ts compared to Je ffe rso n 's 68. Je fferso n , o f course, became Vice-President accordingly to the co n stitu tio n al provision governing the choice o f the top two executive o ffic e rs , though h is acceptance of the second fid d le position was a su rp rise to some observers. M any Adams p artisan s were unhappy with the o th er wing o f th e ir p arty , foreshadowing the eruption of the feud Into open war fare during the next few y ears, and Burr was d is tin c tly displeased with the Republican defection from him 1n the South, where so many votes were wasted th at he came 1n a poor fo u rth . But the advent of the stru ctu red —though s t i l l s e c re t—caucus 1n the next campaign would provide the g rea test party unity fo r p resid en tial and v1ce-pres1dent1al candidates y et achieved. In f a c t, the Republicans would go from the 63 embarrassment o f p o litic a l rags to the woes of p o litic a l rich es. A ctually, one noteworthy observer, Elbrldge Gerry, had 1n la te 6^The fin a l e lecto ral count stood as follow s: Adams, 71; Jefferso n , 68; Thomas Pinckney, 59; Burr, 30; Samuel Adams, 15; O liver E llsw orth, 11; George Clinton 7; John Jpy, 5; James I re d e ll, 3; John Henry, 2 ; Samuel Johnston, 2; George Washington, 2; and Charles C. Pinckney, 1. P etersen, A S ta tis tic a l History of the ftnerlcan P residential E lectio n s. 121 Stephen Hlgglnson to Alexander Hamilton, January 12, 1797, Alexander Hamilton Papers, Library of Congress. 36 1796 forecast a s o rt o f pre-nineteenth century "Era of Good Feelings" on the basis o f Je ffe rso n 's acceptance o f the v1ce-pres1dency under Adams. He thought a c o a litio n of p a rtie s would occur, thus leading to an abatement o f the p artisan s p i r i t which had played so prominent a role In convincing Washington to leave the p o litic a l environment of Philadelphia fo r the pastoral surroundings of Mt. Vernon; the beasts o f the fie ld s and farmyard would be unable to c r itic iz e him, except perhaps In case o f a most unlikely v is it from a contemporary version o f Balaam and h is loquacious ass. Even Jefferso n thought In January o f 1797 th a t a c o alitio n In support of Adams might be th e only c ertain method to keep Hamilton out of the p resid en tial ch air. But G erry's prognostication—o r perhaps wishful thinking—had l i t t l e chance of coming tru e . In the fin a l a n a ly sis, the Republicans were unwilling to submerge th e ir Ideas and pretensions to any such c o a litio n , even though Adams seemed to regard the other party 1n a su rp risin g ly favorable lig h t a t tim es. But the normal partisanship between F ed eralists and Republicans seemed to be re la tiv e ly minor on some occasions when compared to the In tra -p a rty riv a lry between the Adams and Hamilton fa c tio n s.6* Though seemingly unw illing—a t le a s t for awhile—to believe the reports th a t the Hamiltonian forces had attempted to bring Pinckney 1n f i r s t , Adams quickly became more r e a lis tic and saw th a t party unity would not come e a sily . In f a c t, he wrote h is wife 6*Gerry to Abigail Adams, December 28, 1796, Elbridge Gerry Papers, Library o f Congress. 37 w ithin two weeks o f his inauguration th a t he expected Hamilton to be a com petitor fo r the presidency 1n 1800. But 1 t Is highly doubt ful th a t Adams perceived the magnitude of d isu n ity which would develop between the rival fa c tio n s, an In tra -p a rty p o litic a l acrimony which even surpassed the In te r-p a rty feelings In many re sp ects. Though Hamilton him self would not be a candidate against the P resident 1n 1800, his schemes against Adams In elec tio n year made him no less 65 sig n ific a n t as an opponent. For a v ariety o f reasons, Adams retained Washington's cab in et, but th is action would u ltim a te ly cause him considerable d iffic u lty a t the hands o f the Hamiltonian members—Timothy P ickering, James McHenry, and O liver W olcott, J r . —who proved to be more loyal to the N ew Yorker than to the P resident. This e rro r, o f course, exacerbated the P re sid en t's In tra-p a rty problems. The most serious contention between the two F ed eralist factions re su lted from the question o f negotiations w ith France In 1799 regarding the de fa c to , but undeclared, naval h o s tilitie s ex istin g between the United S tates and her erstw h ile Revolutionary benefactor. This c r itic a l problem, among o th e rs, and the consequent 111 w ill between the Hamilton and Adams groups v irtu a lly guaranteed a movement of some s o rt against the P resident by a segment o f his own party 1n the electio n o f 1800. A few F ed eralists hoped to unify the party by bringing Washington 65 Adams to Elbrldge Gerry, February 13, 1797, 1n C. F. Adams, The Works o f John Adams. V III, 524. Adams to h is w ife, March 17, V^7, c ite d In Leonard 0. White, The F e d e ra lists: A Study In A dm inistrative H istory, 1789-1801 (New York, 1965), 240. 38 out of retirem ent to run fo r P resident, but le tte r s to him 1n middle and la te 1799 which made such a request were overshadowed by the leader-em eritus1 d islik e o f the rampant p artisan sh ip and h is love fo r an uncluttered existence a t Mt. Vernon. Washington was thus unavailable, both by choice and by reason o f h is death In December of 1799; since Adams was the Incumbent, I t would be d if f ic u lt to releg ate him to the scrap heap, but the question remained regarding what form the factional opposition would take.*’* ’ Movement w ithin the Hamiltonian faction to r e s is t the re - electio n o f Adams began to take d e fin ite shape during the l a s t three months o f 1799. Timothy Pickering In siste d In la te October th a t the President had lo s t F e d eralist support and fo r the sake of p arty unity should consequently refuse to seek r e - e l e c t i o n I n December, Pickering also noted th a t Harrison Gray 0t1s was te llin g some people th a t Massachusetts would prevent any attem pt to bring 1n Adams' y et unnamed running mate In f i r s t place by throwing away some o f the s ta te 's second e le c to ra l votes and In sisted th a t the party must a c t uniformly to win both the executive o ffic e s . Some anti-Adams 66A n ex cellen t analysis o f why Adams continued the Incumbent se c re ta rie s In o ffic e 1s found 1n Kurtz, The Presidency of John Adams, 261-83. Kurtz provides a ra th e r thorough account o f the French problem and the re su ltin g growth of F ed e ra list Internecine w arfare, as does Dauer, The Adams F ed eralists. For the attem pts to d ra ft Washington, see Dauer (p. 249) and C harles, The Origins o f the American Party System, 49. 6^P1cker1ng to F isher Ames, October 24, 1799; Pickering to William Bingham, October 29, 1799, c ite d 1n Dauer, The Adams F e d e ra lists, 246. 39 leaders thought perhaps public opinion would allow a change 1n candidates, a p o s s ib ility which would, of course, elim inate the p o ten tial problems of misplaced lo y alty to th e P resident. I f such a change could be made, Pickering thought O liver Ellsworth of Connecticut and Charles C. Pinckney o f South Carolina should be the s u b stitu te s. In the absence o f a more lik e ly candidate, a large number of F ed eralists apparently were c le a rly leaning toward Adams by December. I f the President should withdraw, however, Ellsworth would probably be the stan d ard -b earer.68 That same month, however, Theodore Sedgwick had Indicated he had considerable doubt about the a b ility o f the F ed eralists to u n ite on two sp e c ific can didates but he did feel the party could prevent J e ffe rso n 's e le c tio n .69 A s ele ctio n year dawned, Hamilton and h is clique were Indeed 1n th e midst of a dilemma. Should they risk openly s p littin g the party by attem pting to replace Adams on the tic k e t, or hazard Instead themselves and th e ir cause by p e rsistin g 1n supporting a President who hated them and would lik e ly pursue p o lic ie s Inimical to th e ir In te re sts? P ick erin g 's previous suggestion to supplant Adams I f possible e lic ite d a cautious reply from Stephen H1gg1nson: fo r the 68P1cker1ng to Stephen H1gg1nson (copy), December 23, 1799, Timothy Pickering Papers, Massachusetts H istorical Society. John Dawson to James Madison, December 12, 1799, James Madison Papers, Library o f Congress. 69Sedgw1ck to Rufus King, December 12, 1799, 1n C. R. King, Life and Correspondence o f Rufus King, I I I , 156. See also Joseph C harles, "Adams and Jefferso n : The Origins o f the American Party System," William and Mary Q uarterly. Third S e rie s, XII (Ju ly , 1955), 420. 40 present he thought th a t outward appearances o f good w ill w ithin the party should be maintained u n til some d e fin ite arrangement could be made to su b stitu te another candidate without causing e ith e r the party to d isin te g ra te or Je ffe rso n 's chances to be Improved. In fa c t, he doubted whether public opinion would allow Adams to be shunted asid e, though he agreed th a t Ellsworth and Pinckney would be good su b stitu te s I f a change were to be attem pted.*0 While the Hamiltonians pondered th e ir course, some Republicans reported F ed eralist e ffo rts to d iv ert a tte n tio n from Jefferson by hinting 1n the various p arts of the country th a t an Important local man would be run with Adams. By early March, the P resident had not y e t been discarded—1n f a c t, some thought him lik e ly to be run again—though a d e fin ite v ice-p resid en tial contender had not y e t been determined. While Charles C. Pinckney and John Marshall had some warm adherents fo r the second p lace, some F ed eralists favored running a man from the middle s t a t e s .^ But the Hamiltonians were perhaps as re tic e n t to give up the Idea o f su b stitu tin g Ellsworth and Pinckney fo r some s o rt of Adams tic k e t as they were to launch such a p ro ject openly. One party man from N ew York remarked th a t he had been Informed there was sig n ific a n t *°Ham1lton to Rufus King, January 5, 1800; William Bingham to King, March 5, In C. R. King, 1800, L ife and Correspondence of Rufus King, I I I , 173. H1gg1nson to P ickering, January 12, I8bb; Pickering to William Smith (copy), March 22, 1800, Timothy Pickering Papers, Massachusetts H istorical Society. **John Dawson to James Madison, December 12, 1799, James Madison Papers, Library o f Congress. S. T. Mason to James Madison, January 16, 1800, James Madison Papers, Library o f Congress. opposition to Adams among some Federal congressmen and f e l t th a t an 72 Ellsworth-Plnckney tic k e t would be the answer to th e ir discontent. The President received a l e t t e r warning o f th is scheme, though In s is tin g th a t Ellsworth would support him and th a t he would do well with southern F ed e ra lists. A subsequent m issive from the same In formant was somewhat less co n fid en t, warning th a t Hamilton and O liver Wolcott, with the help o f such men as James McHenry and Robert Goodloe Harper, were organizing th e ir e ffo rts to run Ellsworth and th a t the southern wing would probably d esert Adams 1f they became 73 convinced he would lo se. Christopher Gore, another knowledgeable F e d e ra list, f e l t , however, th a t those favoring the President would f in a lly win o u t, while Theodore Sedgwick was already counting on a 74 tic k e t of Adams and one o f the Pinckneys by la te March. Implementation o f the scheme to run an Ellsworth-C. C. Pinckney tic k e t became less lik e ly as the y ear progressed. I t was evident th a t Adams had too much support w ithin the ranks o f Federalism to perm it elim inating him as the p resid en tial candidate, and the Hamiltonians concluded th a t th e ir only hope was to portray publicly a u n ified fro n t fo r a tic k e t o f Adams and Charles C. Pinckney, while 72R. Troup to Rufus King, March 9, 1800, 1n C. R. King, Life and Correspondence o f Rufus King. I l l , 208-9. 73 to John Adams, March 11, 19, 1800, Adams Family Papers, Massachusetts H istorical Society. 7*Gore to King, April 24, 1800, 1n C. R. King, Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, I I I , 229. Sedgwick to William Loughton Smith, March 24, l800, William Loughton Smith Papers, Library of Congress. 42 working sub rosa to see th at the Carolinian came In f i r s t . Hamilton was e sp ecially d istressed when spring electio n s In N ew York promised a Republican le g isla tu re and hence the selection o f Republican e le c to rs: "To support Adams and Pinckney equally 1s the only thing th a t can possibly save us from the fangs o f Jefferso n ." In order to adopt such a course, Hamilton wrote Theodore Sedgwick 1n P hiladelphia, In sistin g th a t 1t was e sse n tia l fo r the party to hold a meeting o f th e ir congressmen before adjournment to make a d e fin ite and solemn agreement to u n ite behind the two proposed candidates; the N ew Yorker Instructed Sedgwick to arrange the conclave Immediately. Unless such an agreement could be reached and Implemented, Massachusetts might well refuse to cast a ll of her second votes for th e C arolinian, and Hamilton said 1f he were not c e rta in th a t the whole tic k e t would re ceive equal backing 1n the E ast, he would support Pinckney as the sole contender. The Federal ta c tic ia n no doubt realized th a t 1f the bargain were followed elsewhere but Pinckney's home sta te went fo r both southern candidates as she had In 1796, Adams would be out 1n the cold. Hamilton, aided by the stim ulus o f bad electio n news from N ew York, thus served as the prime In stig a to r of the f i r s t —and l a s t— F ed eralist congressional nominating c a u c u s.^ Sedgwick responded quickly to the d irectio n s to execute the caucus plan. The Inner c irc le o f Hamiltonians understood th e ir c h ie f's ^H am ilton to Theodore Sedgwick, May 4, 10, 1800, In Lodge, Works o f Alexander Hamilton, X, 371, 375. Timothy Pickering to Rufus King, M ay 7, I 860; King to R. Troup, M ay 8 , 1800, 1n C. R. King, Life and Correspondence o f Rufus King, I I I , 232, 235-36. strateg y w e ll, and perceived th a t he had not thrown 1n the towel to Adams. About the time the F ed eralists gathered fo r th e ir v irtu a lly pre-determined nominations, Secretary o f S tate Pickering observed to William Loughton Smith th a t since N ew York would be Republican 1n the f a l l , "the only chance o f a federal P resident w ill be by General C. C. Pinckney." The scheme, the Secretary sa id , was to run Pinckney equally with Adams 1n order to secure the N ew England votes—some of which might otherw ise be lo s t—fo r the southern candidate, with the expectation th a t the CarolInas would vote fo r Jefferson and Pinckney. This sequence of events might well put the General over the to p .76 According to the ta c tic s outlined by Hamilton, a number of F ed eralist congressmen convened In caucus about M ay 8 to consider th e ir candidates and agree on a plan fo r concerted actio n . The assembled members, doubtless well b riefed fo r th e ir ta sk , voted overwhelmingly—one rep o rt said unanimously—th a t Adams and C. C. Pinckney be supported equally by the party throughout the country. Most assumed th a t Pinckney was to be the v ice-p resid en tial candidate, but In these days before the Twelfth Amendment, 1t was Impossible to make the d istin c tio n when the e le cto rs cast th e ir b a llo ts . In any case, the general Impression cast the C arolinian 1n th e second ro le , and the word went out to the hinterlands th a t the bargain of equal 7®P1cker1ng to Smith, M ay 7, 1800, William Loughton Smith Papers, Library o f Congress. See also James Gunn to John Rutledge, J r . , M ay 15, 1800, John Rutledge, J r . , Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. 44 support must be kept 1f the party were to have any chance of success. Apparently, th e South Carolina delegates gave assurances th a t I f th e ir s ta te chose F ed eralist e le c to rs, Adams would be supported fu lly , though they acknowledged th a t Republican success would throw the votes to Pinckney and Jefferso n . Some Hamiltonians, however, even hinted p u b licly th a t while the general hope was fo r Adams to be re -elec ted President and Pinckney chosen fo r V ice-President, circum stances might re s u lt In a reversal o f the p o sitio n s. So the F ed eralist congressmen had decided to adopt the Hamiltonian p lan , though many a t the caucus doubtless fa ile d to perceive th e subterfuge the N ew Yorker had In mind. To say th a t the plan was put through the caucus 1n one o f the proverbial railro a d jobs might be u n fa ir, but one would scarcely be surprised I f some o f the members thought they m ysteriously heard during the meeting th e fa in t, but p e rs is te n t, chugging sounds of the as y e t non-existent Iron horse.77 Theodore Sedgwick to Theodore Sedgwick, J r . , M ay 9, 1800, Theodore Sedgwick Papers, Massachusetts H isto rical Society. Sedgwick to Rufus King, M ay 11, September 26, 1800, In C. R. King, Life and Correspondence o f Rufus King. I l l , 238, 309. P rinted c irc u la r o f kobert Goodloe H arper^ay iS, 1800, Robert Goodloe Harper Papers, Library o f Congress. Rufus King to John Adams, June 27, 1800, Adams Family Papers, Massachusetts H isto rical S ociety. There 1s some d i f fic u lty In dating the caucus. Some sources seem to h in t th a t I t might have met about M ay 3 or 4, p rio r to McHenry's forced resignation. Such a view assumes th a t Hamilton did not know what was going on a t P hiladelphia, because he wrote Sedgwick on M ay 4 to urge th a t a caucus be held as soon as p o ssible. I fin d 1 t harder to accept the Idea o f Hamilton's lack o f knowledge than the view which places the meeting a fte r McHenry's o u ster. The sources suggest th a t, whatever the c a se , the primary heating o f the Internecine war came with P ick erin g 's removal. The number o f F ed eralists who p a rtic ip a te d 1n the caucus 1s u n certain . Some F ed eralist source m aterial suggests th a t a large percentage o f the p a rty 's 83 members o f Congress were present, while an account p rin ted In the Columbian Centlnel of Boston Indicated th a t But th ere was a severe shake-up In the p arty which threatened to break the bonds o f unity expressed 1n the caucus. Adams fin a lly had his f i l l o f the Hamiltonians 1n his cabinet and began purging them from o ffic e . The P resid en t's o u ster o f McHenry, which was p re c ip ita te d on M ay 6, apparently fa ile d to cause much excitem ent, fo r the S ecretary of War was not considered p a rtic u la rly strong, even by his Hamiltonian cohorts. The dism issal proceedings launched ag ain st Secretary of S tate Pickering on M ay 12, however, brought sp e c ific th re a ts to abandon the caucus agreement from some sym p a th e tic to the S ecretary. One I ra te party member declared th a t P ick erin g 's fa te should "occasion a p erfect departure among the F ed eralists from the plan they had agreed upon." Pickering also thought Adams should be dropped, In sistin g th a t many F ed eralists now concluded th a t the President was even more dangerous than Je ffe rso n ; as o f the end of May, he had no suggestion, though, 78 fo r a candidate to run with Pinckney. McHenry f e l t th a t the eastern congressmen would now retu rn to th e ir homes more against Adams' ele c tio n than In favor of 1 t; th is was tru e , he s a id , to an even g re a te r degree among the South Carolina members. O liver Wolcott of the Treasury agreed many were unhappy, th e p a rtic ip a n ts to taled only 24-30. For the Centlnel account, see Cunningham, The Jeffersonian Republicans, 1789-1801, 165. 78 Benjamin Goodhue to P ickering, M ay 18, 1800; Pickering to C. C. Pinckney, M ay 25, 1800; Pickering to John P ickering, M ay 27 1800; Pickering to Rufus King (copy), M ay 28, 1800, Timothy Pickering Papers, M assachusetts H isto rical Society. James McHenry to John McHenry, M ay 20, 1800, O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Connecticut H isto rical Society. 46 noting th a t some Federal congressmen from the middle s ta te s be lieved th a t a strong e f fo r t should be made to promote Pinckney fo r the f i r s t o ffic e . Wolcott had urged them to espouse th e ir feelings openly, thus taking the lead against Adams, but they refused to follow such a course unless some assurance were av ailab le from Massachusetts th a t F ed eralists there would co-operate. E fforts by McHenry to g et southern or Pennsylvania F ed eralists to serve 1n the vanguard o f an overt dump-Adams movement also fa ile d . C. C. Pinckney him self wrote th a t the South was bound by the caucus agree ment, assertin g th a t an action to elim inate Adams from the tic k e t would have to be on su b stan tial grounds and could only come from the East. Though Pinckney favored such a move, he believed I t must nevertheless o rig in ate In Adam's own sectio n . Then the middle s ta te s could second the e f f o r t, and the South could follow . But there was too much support fo r Adams among N ew England F ed eralists to allow him to be deposed from the tic k e t. Robert Goodloe Harper observed th a t the party generally thought any open attem pt to oust Adams would ensure d efeat. Instead, the caucus agreement should be sustained; when the electo rs came to vote, those who f e l t Adams was u n fit could q u ie tly waste th e ir second b a llo t, giving th e ir f i r s t to Pinckney. Samuel Smith o f Maryland reported, though, th a t Harper and others were publicly adm itting th e ir e ffo rts to bring In Pinckney over Adams. Word also came to Wolcott th a t even those In Connecticut who were alien ated from Adams could not countenance an open attem pt to overthrow the P resident; they believed th a t the caucus tic k e t should 47 79 be supported rath e r than a new s la te . In N ew Je rse y , a F ed eralist lieu ten an t In siste d th a t a public avowal of a plan to drop the President would re s u lt 1n c e rta in d efeat. Whatever had to be done must be accomplished by th e e le c to rs. B y the end o f June, the struggle by some o f the Hamilton junto to break Adams by Inv alid atin g the caucus agreement was not over, but 1t had made no real progress 80 and looked as though I t would ultim ately f a l l . One o f the primary weapons used 1n the arguments which advo- cated th a t Adams be excluded from th e tic k e t was the accusation th a t he and Jefferson had formed a c o a litio n , thus betraying the Federal cause 1n general and Pinckney 1n p a rtic u la r. Though Adams denied the charge, Pickering and others promulgated these rumors, portraying the P resident as having agreed to take the vice-presidency under Jefferson and to work against Pinckney's electio n to e ith e r o ffic e . Such words were strong medicine designed as a purgative to remove what the adm inistering physician thought was the Adams disease from the F e d e ra list body p o litic , but even th is harsh potion W o lco tt, J r . , to F isher Ames, August 10, 1800, In Gibbs, Memoirs o f the A dm inistrations of Washington and Adams, I I , 403-4. James McHenry to C. C. Pinckney, M ay 1$, June 1, 1800; Pinckney to McHenry, June 10, 19, 1800, James McHenry Papers, Library o f Congress. Harper to Alexander Hamilton, June 5 , 1800; Pinckney to McHenry, June 19, 1800, 1n Bernard C. S te in e r, e d ., Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland, 1907), 458-60. George Cabot to O liver W olcott, J r . , June 14, 1800, 1n Henry Cabot Lodge, e d ., Life and L etters o f George Cabot (Boston, 1878), 274. Samuel Smith to Wilson Cary N icholas, June 24, 1800, Samuel Smith Papers, Library of Congress. Harper to H arrison Gray O tis, June 25, 1800, Harrison Gray 0t1s Papers, M assachusetts H isto rical Society. 80 Richard Stockton to O liver W olcott, J r . , June 27, 1800, O liver WOlcott, J r . , Papers, Connecticut H istorical Society. 48 fa ile d to f u lf il the d o c to r's expectations.8^ A re la tiv e ly non p artisan Elbrldge Gerry wished fo r such a union o f p a rtie s , as noted 82 e a r lie r , but there was no such c o a litio n . The Republicans, of course, were spared the m u ltip lic ity of Intrigues which helped to sap the strength of the F ed eralist p arty . Indeed, v irtu a lly a ll members o f the opposition looked to Jefferson as th e ir candidate, and th is y ear, unlike 1796, they had to face no real problem In luring him Into the race. Aside from form alizing Je ffe rso n 's nomination, the Republicans had only to decide on th e ir v1ce-pres1dent1al candidate. Though Aaron Burr had been run 1n 1796, th ere was no general agreement to support him, and many southern votes had been given to o th ers. With Jefferson In lin e to lead the tic k e t, I t became Increasingly evident during 1800 th a t his asso ciate on the Republican s la te would be selected from N ew York. Indeed, 83 George Clinton had been recommended to Madison In December o f 1799, 81 James Gunn to John Rutledge, J r . , M ay 12, 1800, John Rutledge J r . , Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. Pickering to Timothy Williams (copy), M ay 19, 1800; Pickering to Benjamin Goodhue (copy), M ay 26, 1800; Pickering to Rufus King (copy), June 26, 1800, Timothy Pickering Papers, Massa chusetts H isto rical Society. Pickering to William Laughton Smith, M ay 28, 1800, William Loughton Smith Papers, Library o f Congress. Pickering to Rufus King, May 28, 1800; George Cabot to King, M ay 29, 1800, 1n C. R. King, L ife and Correspondence ofR ufus King, I I I , 249-49. Abigail Aaams to J6hn Adams, M ay 23, 1800, Adams Family Papers, M assachusetts H isto rical Society. 82 Elbrldge Gerry to John Wendell (photocopy), June 13, 1800, Elbrldge Gerry Papers, Library o f Congress. 83 John Dawson to James Madison, December 12, 1799, James Madison Papers, Library o f Congress. 49 though some F ed eralists thought la te In March th a t Robert R. Livingston would probably be the Republican contender.**4 Burr was another lik e ly candidate, esp ecially In view of his able campaign e ffo rts fo r the cause In his home s ta t e .88 Republican leaders 1n th e cap ital decided by sometime 1n April th a t they preferred e ith e r Burr or Clinton fo r the p o st. Accordingly, James Nicholson of N ew York received a l e tte r from A lbert G alla tin , then In Congress, asking him to consult with both of the p o ten tial candidates and rep o rt th e ir respective a ttitu d e s toward the prospect o f running with Jefferso n . Nicholson la te r said th a t he began his fa c t finding mission by v isitin g C linton, who In sisted th at the recent death of h is wife and the consequent need of h is family made him averse to running. Clinton added th a t Burr or Livingston o r John Langdon of N ew Hampshire would be as good or b e tte r fo r the task . Nicholson, however, pressured his host fo r a more p o sitiv e reply, assertin g th a t a refusal might Imperil Je ffe rso n 's chances. At th is point Clinton grudgingly assented to allow h is name to be used fo r the second o ffic e , with the understanding th a t he would be a t lib e rty to resign 1f elected . Nicholson proceeded to d ra ft a l e t t e r to G allatin expressing C linton's view s.88 84 Theodore Sedgwick to William Loughton Smith, March 24, 1800, William Loughton Smith Papers, Library of Congress. L. Davis to A lbert G allatin , March 29, M ay 1, 5, 1800, A lbert G allatin Papers, New-York H istorical Society. 86 Statement o f James Nicholson, December 26, 1803, D e W1tt Clinton Papers, Columbia U niversity. 50 Burr was next on the v is ita tio n schedule. Finding him alone, Nicholson asked h is feeling on being run w ith Jefferso n . Mindful of his disappointment In 1796, when he received meager support 1n the South d espite Je ffe rso n 's strong showing, Burr a t f i r s t refused to relinquish what he considered to be the c e rta in ty of electio n to the N ew York governorship 1n return fo r the u n certain ty of being chosen V ice-President. The p otential candidate then l e f t the room, and two Republican friends arrived with w hom Nicholson discussed the s itu a tio n . The two then l e f t to consult w ith Burr; when they a ll returned, Burr to ld Nicholson th a t he would re lu c ta n tly consent to run. The emissary from G allatin then a lte re d h is o rig in al l e t t e r of reply to In d icate th a t C linton's response was an unqualified re fusal and th a t Burr had accepted. W hen Informed o f his change, 87 Clinton announced he was pleased to be rid o f the question. Clinton agreed with the e sse n tia ls o f th is account but outlined what he thought were some minor (and u n in ten tio n al) m isrepresentations. F irs t o f a l l , he said Nicholson to ld him he was th e f i r s t choice o f the p arty lead ers; Burr was to be asked In case Clinton declined. In ad d itio n , he suggested th a t Burr was more eager fo r th e second o ffic e than Nicholson Implied and said the change In the o rig in al version o f the l e t t e r to G allatin to represent Clinton as d e fin ite ly refusing was made to appease the p o litic a l firm o f Burr and asso ciates. Moreover, the emissary la te r acted as though he were sorry to have ^S tatem en t o f James Nicholson, December 26, 1803, De W1tt Clinton Papers, Columbia U niversity. Q O made the change. Whatever the fin e points o f these n eg o tiatio n s, N icholson's reply l e t t e r to G allatin provided an undiluted testimony o f confidence In Burr, In sistin g th a t Clinton declined because of age and In firm ity , while v irtu a lly a ll Republicans 1n th e ir area favored the younger candidate: "Their confidence In A[aron] B[urr] 1s univer sa l and unbounded." He represented Burr as being somewhat averse to th e Idea o f running because o f a fe a r th at uniform support could not be mustered In the South but f e lt the prospective contender would accept a nomination which provided assurances of undivided Republican support. About the same time as Nicholson re p lie d , G allatin received o th e r Indications o f Republican support fo r Burr 1n N ew York, along w ith cogent advice to nominate him fo r the second o ffic e and co n flr- 89 matlon o f C lin to n 's unwillingness to run. Some F e d e ra lists, however, s t i l l m istakenly expected Livingston to be th e opposition candidate fo r V ice-President.90 In view o f the opinion coming out of th e Empire s ta te , a so lid nomination fo r Burr became e ssen tial to the Republican b a ttle strateg y . The party notables 1n Philadelphia th erefo re determined to hold a con fid e n tia l caucus o f th e ir congressmen to agree on th e candidates fo r both top executive p o sts, though the question o f the p re sid e n tia l ®®George Clinton to De Witt Clinton, December 13, 17, 1803; January 2 , 1804, D e W1tt Clinton Papers, Columbia U niversity. ® 9N1cholson to G a lla tin , Nay 5, 7, 1800; M . L. Davis to G alla tin , M py 5, 1800, A lbert G allatin Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. 90Thomas B. Adams to John Quincy Adams, M ay 11, 1800, Adams Family Papers, M assachusetts H istorical S ociety. 52 nominee was already s e ttle d . A ctually, the meeting was planned prim arily to secure the agreement of southern members to support Burr and to cement party unity fo r the approaching stru g g le . By the time the group convened, th ere was l i t t l e , 1f any, su b stan tial sentim ent fo r o th er possible running mates. I f th e ir e ffo rts to e le c t Jefferson were su ccessfu l, however, the Republicans p referred avoiding the p o s s ib ility o f having th e ir joys d ilu ted by the electio n o f a F ed eralist V ice-President, p referrin g ra th e r to learn from th e ir opponents' m isfortune 1n 1796. With unity the magic word, the Jeffersonian stalw arts met about M ay 12 a t Marache's boardinghouse, the acknowledged headquarters o f the p arty. Of the 55 Republicans then In Congress, about 9 Senators and 37 Representatives attended. The group selected John Langdon as chairman and apparently Included such s ig n ific a n t leaders as A lbert G a lla tin , Nathaniel Macon, Wilson Cary Nicholas, John Randolph, Joseph H. Nicholson, P h ilip Van C ortlandt, Edward Livingston, and Michael Lelb. Some accounts o f the meeting mention the attendance o f c e rta in notable Republicans who were outside Congress, but whether th is occurred Is unclear; 1n any case, the v ast percentage o f the p a rtic ip a n ts were congressmen. A fter unanimously choosing Jefferson fo r th e ir standard-bearer, the caucus nominated Burr fo r the second spot on the tic k e t. Both men, however, were promised equal support, an arrangement which would la te r e l i c i t anguished c rie s from Jefferson fo r I ts njyoplc tendencies. But the lesson of 1796 was apparently too fresh 1n the minds of the caucus p a rtic ip a n ts —not to mention the need to convince Burr he would be fu lly supported—to allow the 53 dangers o f the plan to be e a sily seen. The agreement was passed along to party members, but the proceedings were not published because the congressional nominating caucus was In 1800 s t i l l Irre g u la r and non- p u b lic, d espite I ts being more form alized and stru ctu red than what ever unsuccessful meeting or discussions were held In 1796. One p a rtic ip a n t la te r to ld James Madison th a t the members realized the delicacy o f the e n tire proceeding but In siste d they f e l t the absolute n ecessity o f concerted party action overcame the objections to such a nom ination.9* The Republicans, then, had made th e ir decision and would s tic k by 1 t w ithout the continual v a c illa tio n and factio n al jealousy ex perienced by the F e d e ra lists. Indeed, the party 1n power was to w itness the prevalence o f Intrigue and m istru st throughout the cam paign. Having conmltted him self to the Adams-Pinckney tic k e t only because he thought such a course was the best means of securing votes fo r the supposed v ice-p resid en tial candidate from South Carolina, 91john Randolph to Joseph H. Nicholson, M ay 3, 14, 1800; Nathaniel Macon to Nicholson, May 9, 1800, Joseph H. Nicholson Papers, Library o f Congress. Nathaniel Macon to A lbert G allatin , February 13, 1824; Thomas W . Cobb to G a lla tin , April 28, 1824, A lbert G allatin Papers, N ew York H isto rical Society. John Nicholas to James Madison, November 28, 1800, James Madison Papers, Library of Congress. Richmond Enquirer. August 6, 1824, p. 3. Albany Argus. March 5, 1824, p. 3 ., August 24, 1824, p. 2; November 11, 1824, p. 2. There Is some dlsagreemtn on the number which attended the gathering. Hezeklah Niles lis te d the to ta l as 43 members o f Congress, plus some o ther Republican notables who were not members o f the le g is la tu re . Niles* Weekly R eglster (Baltim ore), October 2, 1824, p. 66. Mosel O strogorski, "The Rise and Fall o f the Nominating Caucus, L egislative and Congressional," American H isto rical Review, V (January, 1900), 261, ssys Madison, no longer In Congress, took p a rt 1n the conclave but f a lls to su b stan tiate his claim with documentary evidence. I have been unable to find source m aterials which v erify O strogorskl's p o sitio n . Hamilton was experiencing a t the beginning o f July considerable fear th a t his fa v o rite would receive less than uniform support 1n the North; those who thought o f arranging fo r votes to be thrown away from Pinckney did so because they wished to prevent the very thing fo r which Hamilton worked so hard— -the choice o f the Carolinian fo r the f i r s t , Instead o f the second, o ffic e . The N ew York leader f e l t the more sig n ific a n t F ed eralists had the proper outlook on the question, but th e ir views were more than counter-balanced by the second level of the party leadership and the rank and f i l e , who were attached to Adams. At the same tim e, I t appeared to some as though the southern p a rt of Hamilton's plan—Pinckney's winning the votes o f South Carolina along 02 with Jefferso n —was ra th e r lik e ly to be f u lf ille d . The opinion s t i l l p e rsiste d among some In the anti-Adams segment o f the F ed eralists th a t the President should be dropped. Hamilton's doubts about adherence to the caucus agreement In N ew England caused him to think th a t circumstances might s t i l l require an overt abrogation o f the promise to support Adams. I f the F ed eralists of some s ta te s would declare th e ir secession from the commitment to Adams, he thought 1 t lik e ly th a t many o f the areas now doubtful fo r Pinckney would become h is ardent follow ers In the face of the P resid en t's f u tile prospects. The decision on th is question would be made nearer ^H am ilton to O liver W olcott, J r . , July 1, 1800; Thomas Fltzslmons to O liver W olcott, J r . , July 10, 1800; William Bingham to O liver W olcott, J r . , July 23, 1800 In Gibbs, Memoirs o f the Adminis tra tio n s o f Washington and Adams, I I , 376, 378, 387. John Randolph to Joseph H. Nicholson, July 1, 1800, Joseph H. Nicholson Papers, Library of Congress. 55 93 electio n time according to the circumstances which then prevailed. From several asp ects, the strength of the caucus appeared precarious. One concerned F e d eralist who was dismayed a t the Increasing danger to party unity even suggested a new caucus of the eastern s ta te s to 94 regroup forces and ensure concert of actio n . There was considerable cause fo r concern. Factional s t r i f e w ithin the party was In te n sifie d , as noted, a f te r the purge of McHenry and Pickering from the cab in et. So g reat was the d is tr u s t th a t the situ a tio n may almost be described one Involving two separate F ed eralist p a rtie s . The warring segments even held th e ir own meetings on occasion, and some F ed eralists on the Adams side were reported to favor Jefferson over any man besides the P resident. Fisher Ames In siste d th a t the Adams group would attem pt to form a th ird p arty somewhere between the two major groups and thought the F ed eralist organization was so loose th a t they "scarcely deserve the name o f p arty ." Other observers agreed with th is portrayal o f the p a rty 's lack o f u n ity , and one Implied th a t Je ffe rso n 's e le ctio n would be the s u re s t, though somewhat p ain fu l, 95 way to reu n ite the F ed e ra lists. By early August, Hamilton began 93Ham11ton to Charles C arro ll, July 1, 1800, 1n Lodge, Works o f Hamilton, X, 378-80. 9*Samuel Hodgdon to Timothy P ickering, July 14, 1800, Timothy Pickering Papers, Massachusetts H istorical Society. 95 George Cabot to O liver W olcott, J r . , July 20, 1800; Ames to O liver W olcott, J r . , August 3, 1800; William Bingham to O liver W olcott, J r . , August 6, 1800, 1n Gibbs, Memoirs o f the Adm inistrations o f Washington and Adams, I I , 384, 396, 391T Thomas B. Adams to John Quincy Adams, Ju ly 28, 1800, Adams Family Papers, Massachusetts 56 expressing his thought on the p o s sib ility o f denouncing Adams. Of course, blame fo r the warfare w ithin th e ranks was usually a ttrib u te d by each side to the o th er: w hile the Hamiltonians condemned Adams, the P resid en t's friends c a st aspersions on the opposing segment o f the F e d e ra lists.9® But as f a ll approached, circum stances began to Indicate th a t the caucus agreement had a b e tte r chance o f standing, a t le a s t o f f ic ia lly . For one th in g , an attem pt among some Adamsltes to form a th ird party was unsuccessful. In ad d itio n , the extrem ists 1n the Hamiltonian wing were unable to secure s u ffic ie n t support fo r an open break with Adams. Fear o f Je ffe rso n 's e lec tio n a lso helped to rep air a t le a s t p a rt of the breach. In s h o rt, th e exigencies o f p artisan r e a litie s made the p o litic a l m attress sag toward the cen ter, thereby forcing these somewhat d isp arate p o litic a l bedfellows clo ser together— In p ractice I f not 1n s p i r i t . But the sp ecter o f sub rosa defection p ersiste d : Adams and his asso ciates were c le a rly suspicious of Pinckney and the Intentions of the High F e d e ra lists, while the Hamiltonians hoped the Carolinian could be brought 1n ahead of the P resid en t.97 H istorical Society. [P ierce] B utler to [Thomas] Sumter, August 8, 1800, Thomas Sumter Papers, Library of Congress. George Cabot to Hamilton. Auqust 10. 1800. 1n Lodqe. Life and L etters o f George Cabot, 283-84. ^H am ilton to O liver W olcott, J r . , August 3 , 1800, 1n Lodge, Works o f Alexander Hamilton, X, 383. K urtz, The Presidency of John Adams ,' 39?.------------------------- 97W 1111am P. Beers to Ebenezer Foote, August 27, 1800, Ebenezer Foote Papers, Library of Congress. James McHenry to Hamilton, August 22, 1800; O liver W olcott, J r . , to McHenry, August 22, 1800; Hamilton 57 As the e le c tio n neared, the extreme F ed eralists continued to work fo r Pinckney over Adams, while o sten sib ly supporting the caucus tic k e t. Yet such d u p licity was often less than p leasan t, as Robert Goodloe Harper noted: "I confess to you th a t I support Adams as a means o f g e ttin g Pinckney. . . . Our situ a tio n 1s whimsical! In order to avoid S cy lla, we are bound to run o f our own accord, w ithin a h a ir 's 98 breadth of C herlbdes." But Hamilton saw h is Influence waning within the p arty a t larg e , and his Im patience, fru s tra tio n , and d islik e toward the P resident reached a level th at would no longer allow him to keep his opposition under modest r e s tr a in t: panlc-button p o litic s became the theme. By the end of September, he had d rafted a l e t t e r to be sent to In flu e n tia l N ew Englanders ex co riatin g Adams and ju stify in g the conduct o f the H1gh-Federal1sts, whom the President had condemned as a v io le n tly pro-Br1t1sh fa c tio n . The polemic was not e n tire ly to McHenry, August 27, 1800, James McHenry Papers, Library o f Congress. T. Bates to Frederick Bates, August 17, 1800, Bates Papers, Missouri H isto rical Society. J . Trumbull to John Adams, September 4, 1800, Adams Family Papers, Massachusetts H istorical Society. Timothy Pickering to John Pickering, July 30, 1800, Timothy Pickering Papers, Massachusetts H istorical Society. Robert Goodloe Harper to Harrison Grey 0t1s, August 28, 1800, In Samuel EHot Mori son, The Life and L etters of Harrison Gray O tis, F ederalist, 1765-1848 (2 v o ls., Boston, 1513), I , 192-97. James HcHenry to Oliver WolcottT J r . , July 22, 1800; Chauncey Goodrich to O liver W olcott, J r . , August 26, 1800 1n Gibbs, Memoirs of th e Adm inistrations o f Washington and Adams, I I , 385, 4TT “ Theodore Sedgwick to Rufus King, September 26, 1800, In C. R. King, L ife and Correspondence o f Rufus King, I I I , 308. George Cabot to Hamilton. August 21. 18o0. 1n Lodge, Life and L etters of George Cabot, 284-86. Hamilton to James A. Bayard, August 6 , l&bO, 1n Lodge, Works o f Alexander Hamilton, X, 385-87. 98 Harper to John Rutledge, J r . , September 24, 1800, John Rutledge, J r . , Papers, Southern H istorical C o llectio n , U niversity of North C arolina. h o stile In I ts c h a ra c te riz a tio n , however, even adm itting th a t Adams should be supported equally with Pinckney according to the caucus agreement. Yet 1 t was c le a r to most th a t the N ew Yorker was le ss than sin cere In th is proviso. Hamilton p riv a te ly admitted th a t the object o f the m issive was "the promoting of Mr. Pinckney's e lectio n and the v indication o f o u rselves." There was considerable consul ta tio n on whether such m aterial should be published. Wolcott personally favored publication but feared 1 t might re s u lt 1n more div isio n w ithin the p arty . I f Hamilton expected th a t p rin tin g the l e t t e r would Increase Pinckney's votes 1n the E ast, then s t a r t the presses; I f popular feelin g 1n those s ta te s were strong fo r Adams or weak fo r Pinckney, then Wolcott thought the Information should be kept out o f the public p rin ts .^ 00 Though 1 t was fin a lly determined th a t the l e t t e r should be p rinted fo r d istrib u tio n only among F ed eralist lead ers, Republican c ra ftin e ss soon ended Hamilton's d issa tisfa c tio n with such a modest course: the pamphlet was Intercepted and g le e fu lly published by the Jefferso n ian s. A ctually, the l e t t e r fa ile d to liv e up even to the expectations o f Ham ilton's frien d s. While fa llin g to hurt Adams, 1t apparently backfired by harming the H1gh-Federal1sts' Image. I f any th in g , the pamphlet probably helped the P resid en t, even with some who 99 Hamilton to O liver W olcott, J r . , September 26, 1800, 1n Lodge, Works o f Alexander Hamilton, X, 389-90. 1°°Wolcott to Hamilton, October 2, 1800, In Gibbs, Memoirs of the A dm inistrations of Washington and Adams, I I , 430. M ller, The F e d e r a lis t Fra, 2 5 7 . - - - - - - - - - — 59 were less than happy with his c o n d u c t.^ Meanwhile, the Republicans moved almost Inexorably toward th e ir d estin y . A rumor In July th a t Jefferson had died evoked the expectation from one southern observer th a t Burr—o r possibly Madison- would be moved Into the top s p o tJ 0* That f i r s t reference was made to Burr suggests a b e lie f In h is elevation and Indicates the s o lid a rity o f the tic k e t. Some N ew Yorkers did express to Madison 1n early October a request fo r assurance th a t the South would be tru e to the caucus agreement by supporting Burr. Madison Immediately rep lie d th a t the N ew York h a lf o f the tic k e t would receive equal backing. His correspondent then wrote to p ro te st about a rumor he heard which asserted one o r two votes would be held back from Burr In order to Insure Je ffe rso n 's e lectio n as P resident; he thought several s ta te s might do th is but urged th a t V irginia be unanimous. Another party stalw a rt wrote Madison to recommend compliance with the caucus agree ment and to dispel the rumor th a t some In the North, notably 1n Connecticut and N ew York, were seeking to bring In Burr ahead of William Tudor to John Adams, November 5, 1800, Adams Family Papers, Massachusetts H istorical Society. Frederick Beasley to William Gaston, October 30, 1800, William Gaston Papers, Southern H isto rical C o llectio n , U niversity o f North C arolina. James McHenry to Hamilton, November 19, 1800, James McHenry Papers, Library of Congress. William Duane to James Monroe, October 23, 1800, James Monroe Papers, Library of Congress. Jededlah Morse to O liver W olcott, J r . , October 27, 1800, O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Connecticut His to ric a l Society. John Beckley to Ephraim Kirby, October 25, 1800, Ephraim Kirby Papers, Duke U niversity. See also Dauer, The Adams F e d e ra lists, 253-55; M iller, The F ed eralist Era, 263. 102 Thomas Blount to John Gray Blount, July 8, 1800, 1n Barnwell e t a l . , John Gray Blount Papers, I I I , 399-400. 60 Jefferson.*® 3 Various Important F ed eralists had also heard th is re p o rt, but the extent and Influence o f such a c tiv ity was minimal In comparison to the pervasive F ed eralist In trig u es. While no doubt w illin g to liv e up to the agreement, the wary Virginian wrote his colleague Monroe to say they should play 1t safe and guard against any s lip which might somehow put Burr 1n the p resid en tial chair.*®* But, as the race came down to th e w ire, 1t appeared th a t party d isc ip lin e and unity behind the respective caucus agreements were growing stronger. Despite rumors th a t Republican e le c to rs 1n South Carolina would s p lit th e ir votes between Jefferson and Pinckney, as the Hamiltonians hoped, the party th ere decided to forego allowing th e ir southern prejudices to determine th e ir action and united behind the caucus nominees. Even a rep o rt from the cap ital Indicating th a t eastern F ederalists would repudiate th e united tic k e t had fa ile d to cause a defection among party notables 1n C. C. Pinckney's home s ta te ; Thomas Pinckney wrote th a t the caucus agreement should be followed unless Irre fu ta b le "proofs of an Intention o f foul play. . . render our change not only ju s t but necessary."*®5 With Hamiltonian !03oav1d Gelston to Madison, October 8 , November 21, 1800; Madison to Monroe, November 6 , 1800; John Nicholas to Madison, November 28, 1800, James Madison Papers, Library o f Congress. H. Williamson to James Monroe, November 6 , 1800, James Monroe Papers, Library of Congress. *^Jonathan Trumbull to John Adams, September 24, 1800, Adams Family Papers, Massachusetts H isto rical Society. *®®Aaron Burr to -------, [November?] 20, [1800]; Burr to P. Edwards, November 29, 1800, Aaron Burr Miscellaneous M anuscripts, N ew York Public Library. Thomas Pinckney to John Rutledge, J r . , September 23, 1800, John Rutledge, J r . , Papers, Southern H istorical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. 61 Influence d issip a tin g throughout the p a rty , the F ed eralists 1n th a t s ta te likew ise chose to support both th e ir candidates eoually. Some ta lk o f betrayal of the caucus promises by both p a rtie s 1n various 106 s ta te s p e rsiste d to the la s t, however. In 1800, o f course, th ere was no computerized vote p ro file analysis to p ro je c t "In stan t w inners," and as the retu rn s began to d rib b le Into the c ap ita l over the weeks, 1t became c le a r th a t th is e le c tio n , sim ila r to th a t 1n 1796, would keep the nation 1n suspense fo r some tim e. What o f electo ral unity on the tic k e ts? W as 1 t po ssib le th a t 1n th e ir e ffo rts to c o rrec t the Imperfect nomination agreements o f 1796, the p a rtie s would go heavily enough behind both th e ir resp ectiv e candidates to cause a t i e between a p resid en tial hopeful and h is running mate? Some p o litic ia n s thought of th is p o ten tial exigency and reports Indicated appropriate steps would be taken. P eter Freneau even wrote Jefferson from South Carolina th at the Republican ele c to rs were s e t to c a st a ll th e ir f i r s t votes fo r him, while throwing one of the second b a llo ts to George Clinton so ^ R ic h a r d Stockton to Theodore Sedgwick, November 29, 1800; Theodore Sedgwick to Theodore Sedgwick, J r . , December 5 , 1800, Theodore Sedgwick Papers, M assachusetts H isto rical Society. John Beckley to Ephraim Kirby, October 1, 1800, Ephraim Kirby Papers, Duke U niversity. Henry W . DeSaussure to Bushrod Washington, November 27, 1800; Charles C. Pinckney to John M arshall, December 2, 1800; William Tudor to John Adams, December 14, 1800, Adams Family Papers, Massachu s e tts H isto rical Society. S. Mason to James Monroe, December 5, 1800, James Monroe Papers, Library o f Congress. William Polk to John S te e le , December 5, 1800, John S teele Papers, Southern H isto rical C o llectio n , U niversity o f North C arolina. th ere would be no chance o f a t i e . 107 Jefferson had also been told th a t a Tennessee e le c to r would throw away h is second vote; the p resid en tial candidate, however, was d istre ssed th a t no sp e c ific arrangement had been made to prevent dropping so many votes from Burr as to leave him out and to avoid the reverse problem, complete 108 unanimity fo r the two candidates. But In the rush to abide by the p a rty 's decision to support both men eq u ally , thereby atoning fo r the South's shabby treatm ent o f Burr In 1796, the Republicans 1n South Carolina and Tennessee, as elsewhere, fa ile d to Implement any such plan. The co n trastin g excellence o f Republican elec to ra l consistency shot the arrow ju s t a b it too s tra ig h t Into the bullseye: the fin al count gave Jefferson and Burr 73 votes each. The F e d e ra lists, fo r a ll th e ir th re a ts , In trig u e s, and factio n al quarrels proved to be even more r e a lis tic a lly e f fic ie n t: one Rhode Island e le c to r dropped Pinckney, giving him the p erfect to ta l of one less than Adams, 65-64.109 With the electio n thrown Into the House of R epresentatives, the F ed eralists could harass the Insurgent Republicans by preventing a fin a l choice o r perhaps by supporting Burr. The N ew York v lce- ^07H. Williamson to James Monroe, November 6, 1800, James Monroe Papers, Library o f Congress. Jefferson to Burr (copy), December 15, 1800, Thomas Jefferso n Papers, Library o f Congress. 108 Freneau to Jefferso n , December 2, 1800, 1n Richard B. Davis and Mllledqe B. S le q ler, "Peter Freneau, Carolina Republican," Journal of Southern H istory, XIII (August, 1947), 399-400. 109 P etersen, S ta tis tic a l History o f American P resid en tial E lectio n s, 13. 63 p resid en tial candidate n e ith e r openly sought F ed eralist support nor refused 1t convincingly enough to s u it a ll of his party colleagues. In any case, Hamilton spoke out v io len tly against his p a rty 's voting fo r h is a rc h -riv a l, and th is had some dampening e ffe c t on the plans to support B urr, though many F ed eralists p ersisted In th e ir scheme to upset the Republican apple c a rt. A fter m ultiple b a llo ts , Jefferson was fin a lly chosen. The Republicans a t la s t captured the presidency, d espite the p o litic a l detour caused by a caucus agreement th a t was too e f fe c tiv e .110 Thus, 1800 was the year In which both p a rtie s had congressional caucuses to nominate candidates fo r President and V ice-President. But the caucus had not y e t become reg u lar and public; the nominations on both sides o f the a is le were Irre g u la r and s e c re t. The F ed eralists subsequently made the Information p u b lic, no doubt with the hope of gaining additional support fo r th e ir tic k e t. The Republicans attempted to keep the news of the meeting e sse n tia lly non-public; the re su lts o f the caucus and Injunctions to support the congressional nominations were spread throughout the p arty , however. Such Republican papers as the P hiladelphia Aurora, apparently w illin g to overlook th e ir own p a rty 's Indulgence, c a u stic a lly condemned the F e d e ra list caucus. C riticism came from other Republican quarters as w ell, but 110James A. Bayard to Andrew Bayard, January 8, 1801, James A. and Richard H. Bayard Papers, Library of Congress. C. Rodney to Joseph H. Nicholson, January 3, 1801, Joseph H. Nicholson Papers, Library of Congress. Alexander Hamilton to James McHenry, January 4, 1801, James McHenry Papers, Library o f Congress. B urr's Failure to denounce zealously the F ed eralist plan to put him 1n the p resid en tia l ch air Instead o f Jefferso n hurt him 1n the eyes of many Republicans. 64 the opposition to the method was lim ited 1n comparison to th a t which developed In la te r campaigns. But, lik e subsequent years, th e objections were pragmatic 1n o rig in and purpose—p ractical p o litic a l weapons—despite being phrased 1n th e o re tic a l terms The congressional caucuses fo r naming the p resid en tial and v ice-p resid en tial candidates 1n 1800 I llu s tr a te the burgeoning party stru c tu re and the In s titu tio n a liz a tio n of p o litic a l processes. The s ta rtlin g fa c t about these nominations 1s the degree to which each party adhered to I ts s e t tic k e t, esp ecially In view o f th e numerous rumors and In trig u es which ran rampant through F e d e ra list ranks. The two-party system had a tta in e d su rp risin g m aturity 1n ju s t over a decade, and, w hile the p a rtie s avoided the lesson o f 1796, the Republicans learned the lesson o f 1800. I t was obvious th a t the method o f se le c tin g the P resident should be changed to elim inate the system designed fo r an e sse n tia lly non-partisan arrangement. The e le c tio n o f 1804 would w itness both the employment o f a new e le cto ral system under th e Twelfth Amendment, which pro vided fo r separate votes fo r President and V ice-President, as well as the publicizing and reg u larizin g of the congressional nominating caucus. With the advent of th e formalized caucus 1n 1800, the co ordination of stren g th upon the nominees was v irtu a lly p e rfe c t. But th e deceptively u n ified concentration of e le c to ra l support behind the ^ F o r opposition to the caucus, see Cunnlnqham, The Jefferso n ian Republicans, 1789-1801, 165-66. F ed eralist candidates b elled the d estru ctiv e s p li t 1n the ranks. This d iv isio n , coupled with the narrow defeat of Adams, helped to usher In the proverbial beginning of the end fo r the F e d e ra lists. The Democratlc-Republleans, rec ip ien ts of the mixed blessing o f e le c to ra l unanimity, were able to survive handily the temporary c r is is of e lectio n by the House o f R epresentatives, and during Je ffe rso n 's I n itia l term the party waxed co n sisten tly stro n g er. With the prospect of nominating an Incumbent President fo r re -e le c tio n , the party moved confidently toward the next quadrennial canvass, where they would adm inister one of the most convincing thrashings of our colorful p o litic a l h isto ry . Yet the F e d eralist flag was not struck with one blow. The p arty did not haul down I ts colors on Inauguration day of 1801 and pack I ts p o litic a l knapsack fo r a hike Into the tw ilig h t zone of p artisan limbo. Indeed, there were some signs th a t the F ed eralist organization might even be strengthened following the debacle of 1800. With Adams now P re sld e n t-re je c t, Hamilton's control over the party would obviously be more pronounced. In 1802, Hamilton and Gouvemeur M orris, another F ed eralist n otable, discussed the pos s i b i l i t y o f e sta b lish in g committees o f correspondence from Baltimore to Boston, with N ew York a t the cen ter, to c o lle c t Information re la tiv e to le g is la tio n about which they were concerned. Hamilton a lso outlined a plan fo r a se rie s of Federal1st-or1ented a sso c ia tio n s, though these Ideas fa ile d to appeal to enough party leaders to perm it th e ir e ffe c tiv e Implementation. Charles C. Pinckney, fo r example, f e l t th a t patience would enable the Republicans to 66 demonstrate th e ir In a b ility and the concomitant wisdom o f F ed eralist p o lic ie s: "Without any exertion upon our p a rt In the course of two o r th ree years they [the Jefferso n ian s] w ill render every honest man In the country our P ro sely te." The ch ief o f the p arty now out of power also proposed a national meeting of F e d e ra lists to be held In Washington during 1802, but In su ffic ie n t support m aterialized fo r the p ro je c t. Thus, the p o litic a l activism o f such men as Hamilton and Morris was overcome by the passive approach, which In siste d th a t the dominant p arty would Inevitably commit a s o r t of |M>l1t1ca1 su ic id e .112 There had been sentim ent, as noted, among some F ederalists to support Burr over Jefferson In the House ele c tio n o f 1801, but Hamilton's outrage quickly squelched the Idea. Some party members, however, refused to dism iss th e ir kindly feelin g s toward the new V ice-President, thinking th a t he might be w illin g to divide the Republicans and lead the F ed eralists out o f th e ir p o litic a l w ilderness. This approach became more frequently discussed w ithin the p arty , and Hamilton f e l t obliged In 1802 to denounce th e plan, In sistin g th a t I f the F ed eralists helped his N ew York arc h -riv a l Into the p resid en tial c h a ir, 1 t would be they and not the Republicans who Indulged 1n p artisa n h a r a -k ir i. Gouvemeur Morris agreed, and the weight of these respected opinions doubtless served to repress the Burr feelin g 112Morr1s to Hamilton, February 22, 1802; Hamilton to James A. Bayard, April [ ? ] , 1802; Pinckney to Hamilton, May 3, 1802, Alexander Hamilton Papers, Library o f Congress. For an Informative study on F e d e ra list organization and ta c tic s from 1801 to about 1815, see David Hackett F ischer, The Revolution o f American Conservatism: The F e d e ra list Party 1n the Era o f Jefferso n ian Democracy (New York, 1965). 67 113 somewhat—a t le a s t tem porarily. F isher Ames o f M assachusetts, crying ag ain st the prophets o f d e fe a t, sought to g et the F ed eralists out o f despair and Into action as 1803 approached, urging 1n m issives and 1n person th a t the party be maintained w ithout compromise and perform the function of an activ e m inority group. But even a Herculean e f f o r t would have fa lle n short o f rescuing the F ed eralists from th e ir growing despondency. Nothing seemed to go r ig h t, from alleged Republican gerrymandering In South Carolina to the prospects o f a slip p in g F ed eralist foothold 1n N ew England. F in ally , Ames him self hauled down his fla g by early March o f 1803: I acquiesce—and renounce the pen and m y hopes and resolve 1n fu tu re to be a cabbage stump—such Is federalism . A n In sect a t I ts ro o t, without blossom or seed, and I t 's [s ic ] green vegetation the nearer rottenness fo r being rank. . . . how l i t t l e w ill be done . . . . I renounce the wrangling world o f p o litic s and devote myself 1n fu tu re to pigs and p o u ltry . Thus did the p artisan w arrior resolve to seek refuge 1n the a p o litic a l realm o f the ham-and-eggs s e t . ^ * But Am es was not the la s t F ed eralist to jo in the Jeremiahs who fo reto ld the demise of the p arty . In August o f 1803, a hold-out ^ M orris to Hamilton, March 11, 1802; Hamilton to M orris, April 6 , 1802, Alexander Hamilton Papers, Library o f Congress. ^*Ames to O liver W olcott, J r . , December 2, 1802; March 9, 1803, O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Connecticut H isto rical Society. See also Charles C. Pinckney to John Rutledge, J r . , January 17, 1803, John Rutledge, J r . , Papers, Duke U niversity. John Nicholas to John Rutledge, J r . , February 21, 1803, John Rutledge, J r . , Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North C arolina. John Cotton Smith to David Daggett, March 17, 1803, John Cotton Smith L e tte rs, Belnecke L ibrary, Yale U niversity. 68 op tim ist wrote to Hamilton requesting th a t F ed eralists a rise to the challenge and expressing confidence th a t the former Treasury Secretary would produce a plan o f attack to unite the fa ith fu l 1n a co-ordinated and effectu al campaign. The w rite r f e l t th a t a course of action should be adopted by a F ed eralist meeting In Washington during the next session o f Congress, but no such conclave appears to have 115 been held; F ed eralist morale continued 1n a downtrend. Meanwhile, d esp ite the progressive descent of the F ed eralist banner—the discouragement lamp was l i t more o ften —they had to come up with nominees to oppose the Republican tic k e t, unless the party out o f power wished to consign themselves permanently to th a t region w ithout a stru g g le o f any s o rt. Hamilton, despite h is Influence 1n party c ir c le s , preferred to remain behind the lin es as a p o litic a l s tr a te g is t ra th e r than serving 1n the trenches as a candidate. During the l a t t e r p a rt o f 1802, Charles C. Pinckney and Rufus King began to be considered as lik e ly choices fo r the F ed eralist s la te . Though some members thought Pinckney worthy o f only a second p lace, other leaders In siste d th a t he was q u a lified to head the tic k e t. By the end of January o f 1803, Theodore Sedgwick counted on Pinckney fo r the top spot but f e l t th a t King could give more aid to the party by seeking 115 John Nicholas to Hamilton, August 4, 1803, Alexander Hamilton Papers, Library o f Congress. Benjamin Sllllm an to Simeon Baldwin, December 18, 1803, Baldwin Papers, Belnecke L ibrary, Yale U niversity. George Ervlng to James Monroe, December 17, 1800, James Monroe Papers, Library o f Congress. George Clinton to D e W itt C linton, January 13, 1801, De W itt Clinton Papers, Columbia U niversity. Samuel Smith to John Smith, July 19, 1804, Samuel Smith Papers, Library o f Congress. William Duane to Joel Barlow and F. Sk1pw1th, January 2, 1801, William Duane Personal Papers, M iscellaneous, Library o f Congress. 69 the N ew York governorship. Indeed, he thought th a t th e F ederalists faced almost c e rta in defeat 1n the p resid en tial race, and King's opportunities 1n N ew York would be harmed by p a rtic ip a tin g 1n such a losing e f fo r t. The F ed eralist tic k e t was beginning to take shape, nonetheless, with Charles C. Pinckney and Rufus King as lik e ly contenders. Final agreement—such as I t was—on the candidates would be reached In 1804.^® While the m ajority party doubtless would turn to Jefferson fo r th e ir p resid en tial nominee, the question o f the second spot on the tic k e t again required considerable a tte n tio n , much as I t had 1n previous e le c tio n s. Aaron Burr, the current V ice-President, was on le ss than the b est o f terms with his party—because o f alleged treasonable a c tiv itie s In the Southwest as well as a feelin g by some th a t he had hoped to d efeat Jefferson 1n the House e le c tio n o f 1801— and I t was evident to many th a t he would not be renominated. During the la s t h a lf o f 1803, Christopher Gore, a noted F e d e ra list, expected th a t Robert R. Livingston would be Je ffe rso n 's running mate. By December, Gore thought the Republicans had je ttiso n e d any thoughts o f running Livingston and urged th a t the F ed eralists support the N ew Yorker as th e ir v1ce-pres1dent1a1 nominee, a scheme which made l i t t l e headw ay.^7 Another F e d e ra list, William Plumer, thought th a t John ^®Sedgw1ck to Hamilton, January 27, 1803, Alexander Hamilton Papers, Library o f Congress. ^ 7Gore to Rufus King, September 6 , December 20, 1803; King to Gore, January 4 , 1804, In C. R. King, Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, IV, 305, 335, 340. 70 Langdon would be th e Republican candidate. Some F e d eralists were unsure whether Burr—adm lttedly In trouble with Republicans—would be replaced, w hile others f e l t th a t the lack o f rapport between Jefferson and his V ice-President was c le a r, and hence a change was v irtu a lly g u a ran te ed .^ 8 There was no lack o f c e rta in ty 1n Jefferso n ian c ir c le s , however. Thomas McKean o f Pennsylvania was sought fo r the number two p o sitio n , but he re fu sed .1^ One F ed eralist, Gouvemeur M orris, was perceptive enough to discern the risin g s ta r of the Clinton faction and the consequent likelihood th a t George Clinton would f i l l the spot from which Burr was to be ejected . But the fin a l d ie had y e t to be c a s t, and e le ctio n year began with the winning tic k e t as y e t p a rtly u n d e d d e d J20 Discouragement and fru s tra tio n among the m inority p arty were exacerbated su b sta n tia lly by the tre a ty 1n 1803 providing fo r the acquisition o f Louisiana. In Jefferso n 's real e s ta te w in d fall, the F ed eralist members In the North, where the party was stro n g e st, saw a fu rth e r diminution o f th e ir re la tiv e Influence In th e Union. A fter the tre a ty had been approved 1n the fa ll o f 1803 and while Federal s p ir its remained In th e ir downward s p ira l, a re la tiv e ly sh o rt-liv e d USplumer to T. Thompson (copy), [1803 or 1804], William Plumer Papers, Library o f Congress. John P. Van Ness to William P. Van Ness, November 11, 1803, William P. Nan Ness Papers, N ew York Public Library. H^McKean to A lbert G a lla tin , October 16, 1803, A lbert G allatin Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. 12°Morr1s to Livingston (copy), November 28, 1803, Gouvemeur Morris Papers, Library o f Congress. hope fo r th e creatio n o f a sep arate northern confederacy sprang up among several tenacious s p ir i t s , esp ecially Timothy Pickering. He wrote o th e r members o f the party In an attempt to a ttr a c t support for dismembering the country, In s is tin g th a t the separation to form a new nation (Including N ew England, New York, N ew Je rse y , and possibly Canada) should take place soon and th a t such a movement could be accomplished peacefully. A n obvious fringe b e n e fit of such a plan would be th e end o f concern about the election o f 1804. But th e d is union Idea received l i t t l e activ e support among F ed eralists g en erally , d espite th e ir unhappiness with th e continuance o f V irginia Influence In the national councils. The p arty would have to face the electio n without th e hope o f an escape hatch. The F ed eralists were also d is appointed by the prospective adoption o f the Twelfth Amendment, which— by providing fo r the electio n o f V ice-President by a separate choice— would reduce th e ir p o ten tial Influence even more.*2* Early In e le ctio n y ear, 1 t was c lea r the Republicans would have to solve th e ir dilemma on th e question o f the vice-presidency. I t was rumored 1n February th a t George Clinton had already been decided upon, Inform ally a t le a s t, by th e party leaders In Washington. ^2*P1cker1ng to Richard P eters (copy), December 24, 1803, Timothy Pickering Papers, Library o f Congress. Hlgglnson to P ickering, November 22, 1803; Pickering to George Cabot (copy), January 29, 1804; Pickering to Rufus King (copy), March 4, 1804; Cabot to Pickering, February 14, 1804; Pickering to ------- (copy), December 12, 1803; Pickering to P eter Gordon (copy), Deceidber 19, 1803, Timothy Pickering Papers, M assachusetts H isto rical Society. William Plumer to Jeremiah Mason (copy), January 14, 1804, William Plumer Papers, Library o f Congress. Chauncey Goodrich to O liver W olcott, J r . , February 2, 1804; Wolcott to William Bingham (copy), February 4, 1804, O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Connecticut H isto rical Society. 72 Meanwhile, Clinton had refused re -e le ctio n to the N ew York governor's c h a ir, and his consent to run with Jefferson had reportedly been 122 obtained. By th is tim e, Burr had been long out of the guestlon, d esp ite some Iso lated pockets of support fo r his cause. Concurrent with the opinions th a t Clinton had been u n o ffic ia lly tapped fo r the place to be vacated by Burr came suggestions th a t Representative John Breckinridge o f Kentucky would be chosen. But Breckinridge apparently had l i t t l e outward expectation of winning and tended to support the Clinton rumors, w riting th a t the N ew Yorker would receive the most 123 support 1n Washington. The party press 1n P hiladelphia, the Aurora, lis te d several o ther possible contenders 1n addition to Clinton and Breckinridge: John Langdon, John P. G. Muhlenburg, and Levi Lincoln. Samuel Smith was also mentioned by a paper 1n N ew York s ta t e .12* The fin a l decision on the team to carry the Republican banner was made before the end o f the month, thus perm itting the warm wind of 122 Aurora (P h ilad elp h ia), February 15, 1804, p. 2; February 21, 1804, p. 2, February 25, 1804, p. 2, February 27, 1804, p. 2. George Clinton to D e W itt C linton, November 16, 1803, De W1tt Clinton Papers, Columbia U niversity. 123 G. W . Ward to John Breckinridge, February 13, 1804; David Bullock to John Breckinridge, February 20, 1804, Breckinridge Family Papers, Library o f Congress. John Breckinridge to James Breckinridge, February 24, 1804, Brecklnrldge-M arshall Papers, Fllson Club. 124 Lowell H. H arrison, "John Breckinridge and the Vice- Presidency, 1804: A P o litic a l Episode," The Fllson Club History Q uarterly, X X V I (A pril, 1952), 157. Columbian Centlnel (Boston), March 3, 1804, p. 2. See again the Aurora c ita tio n s Tn footnote 122. p artisan a c tiv ity to be prepared to co n test, 1f d esired , with the cool and gusty breezes o f March. On Saturday evening, February 25, 108 Republican congressmen held a p u b licly announced caucus to name the candidates, unanimously se le ctin g Senator Stephen R. Bradley of Vermont to act as chairman. Jefferso n was nominated by a unanimous vote, as expected, thus clearin g the way to proceed to the real business of the evening: choosing the P re sid e n t's running mate. The western members were anxious to push Breckinridge, and some people thought the Kentuckian was equally eager, though th is appears not to have been the case. Rather he attem pted—though 1n vain—to promote party harmony by keeping his name out of the co n test. John Randolph remarked th a t the westerners wanted "something more than the free navigation o f the M ississippi. . . . they asp1re[d] to give a vice president to the United S tates . . . such a man, say they, a s, on Mr. Je ffe rs o n 's re tirin g may boldly challenge the ch air of government." To prevent the development of a heated debate, the meeting proceeded to c a st th e ir b allo ts without p rio r discussion o r selectio n of men to be considered. Clinton won handily, receiving 67 votes, compared to 20 fo r Breckinridge, 9 fo r Levi Lincoln, 7 fo r John Langdon, 4 favoring Gideon Granger, and 1 naming Samuel Maclay. . Since the Twelfth Amendment had not y e t been r a tif ie d , the group was keenly aware of the necessity to avoid a repeat o f the embarrassing elec to ra l t i e 1n 1800, and I t was understood th a t Clinton would be supported In a manner which would not endanger Je ffe rs o n 's prospects. A committee of one from each s ta te except M assachusetts, Connecticut, N ew Hampshire and Ohio (Including such men as Wilson Cary Nicholas, John 74 B reckinridge, Samuel Smith, and Caeser A. Rodney) was appointed to make the appropriate arrangements to Implement the nominations, but the need fo r caution was obviated when the amendment was r a tif ie d before the ele c to rs were chosen J 2® There were varied reactions to the caucus nomination. Such 126 papers as the Aurora and the National In te llig e n c e r spoke 1n favor. Most Republicans accepted the method, but some, along with numerous F e d e ra lists, denounced the measure. L ittle to n W . Tazewell sent a lengthy m issive to John Randolph with a catalog of complaints against both the caucus system and the fa ilu re to nominate Burr. Referring to the caucus as an a ris to c ra tic trapping, Tazewell objected th a t 1t was an unauthorized meeting . . . to decide, th a t one of the old Servants of the people 1s no longer worthy of th e ir co n fl- *25John Randolph to L ittle to n W . Tazewell, February 26, 1804, Tazewell Family Papers, V irginia S tate Library. Randolph to James Monroe, February 28, 1804, James Monroe Papers, Library o f Congress. Robert Wright to De W1tt C linton, February 26, 1804, D e W itt Clinton Papers, Library o f Congress. George Clinton to John Smith, March 10, 1804, John Smith Miscellaneous M anuscripts, New-York H istorical Society. Rufus King memorandum, April 5, 1804, In C. R. King, Life and Correspondence o f Rufus King, IV, 357-58. Tarleton Bates to John 6. t . Lucas, March 13, 16M, Lucas C ollection, Missouri His to ric a l Society. John Taylor to Wilson Cary N icholas, March 5, 1804, Edgehl11-Randolph Papers, U niversity o f V irginia. National I n te l lig en cer (Washington, D. C .), February 29, 1804, p . T Aurora, March 1 ,1 8 0 4 , p. 2; March 5, 1804, p. 2; March 6, 1804, p. 2. Columbian C entlnel, and Robert Wright quoted 108. H arrison, "John Breckinridge and the V1ce-Pres1dency," 158. Noble E. Cunningham, J r . , The Jefferso n ian Republicans 1n Power: Party O perations, 1801-1609 fCfi'a'peT HITI; 1 M 5 T ,' TO5-6.------ ----------- ----------------------------- ^ N a tio n a l In te llig e n c e r, March 2 , 1804, p. 2. 75 dence . . . . What 1s the consequence? The people are compelled to e le c t th is Candidate so th ru st upon them. . . . A n Intriguing ch aracter has nothing th erefo re to perform, but to secure the good w ill o f the m ajority of the Members of Congress, and his success 1s In ev ita b le. He (and some o thers) opposed th e lack o f discussion and consultation before the vote was taken. Randolph responded by adm itting th a t there were some v alid objections to the caucus but said since n eith er Tazewell nor anyone e lse had suggested an appropriate a lte rn a tiv e , 127 the system appeared to be a necessary e v il. Some northeastern Republicans also were reportedly unhappy with the way the general proceedings leading up to and Including the caucus were handled. One Burr supporter delivered sour grapes to the p o litic a l vineyard by presenting the assertio n th a t the nomination was rushed through w ith out previously consulting the N ew York members, a number o f whom 128 supposedly favored the V ice-President. The runner-up 1n the caucus vote, John B reckinridge, quickly deferred to the d ecision, though an ultim ately abortive Kentucky movement o f considerable strength attempted to run him, d esp ite his w ishes, against the caucus candi date. The reg u larizin g o f the congressional caucus as the usual method o f sele ctin g the nominees thus encountered comparatively l i t t l e 129 opposition. 127 Tazewell to Randolph, March 4 , 1804; Randolph to Tazewell, April 21, 1804, Tazewell Family Papers, V irginia S tate Library. 128 N ew York Evening P o st, February 6, 1808, p. 3. Columbian C en tin el, March 10, 1804, p. 2. John Nicholas to Wilson Cary N icholas, 1804, Wilson Cary Nicholas Papers, Library of Congress. 129 John Breckinridge to Polly Breckinridge, March 7, 1804, Breckinridge Family Papers, Library o f Congress. H arrison, "John Breckinridge and the V1ce-Pres1dency," 158-63. Cunningham, The Jeffersonian Republicans, 1801-1809, 107-8. About the same time th a t the Republican tic k e t went In to the fin a liz in g process by caucus, the F ed eralists were faced with the need to make th e ir choice as w ell. Rufus King and Charles C. Pinckney were widely thought o f as candidates, as noted already, but th ere was some disagreement on who would occupy the f i r s t spot and who the second. Some F e d eralist papers and factions thought King should be number one, while others f e l t he should be placed 1n the " try harder" 130 p o sitio n . Would th is dispute be resolved by a congressional caucus of F ederalists? Despite th e ir small number of congressmen (about 50), one F ed eralist In Washington wrote th a t, while Pinckney seemed to be a so lid fav o rite fo r President among party members a t the c a p ita l, there had as y et been no meeting to decide th is or the vice- p resid en tial nominee. He expected th a t they would hold a caucus to 131 determine the tic k e t, however. But a F ed eralist caucus fa ile d to m aterialize. The demoralized p arty , faced with the v irtu a l c e rta in ty o f a devastating d e fe a t, re gressed from nomination by caucus to nomination by consensus. One way to solve the question o f which man to run fo r P resident was to support both fo r th e highest o ffic e , Inasmuch as the Twelfth Amendment had not y e t been r a tif ie d . The Boston Columbian Centlnel tem porarily 130 Simeon Baldwin to Elizabeth Baldwin, December 19, 1803, Baldwin Family Papers, S terlin g L ibrary, Yale U niversity. Simeon Baldwin to David Daggett, November 26, 1804, David Daggett Papers, Belnecke L ibrary, Yale U niversity. Columbian C entlnel, February 29, 1804, p. 2. Aurora, February 22, 1804, p. 2; February 27, 1804, p. 2; March 8, 1804, p. 2. 131 [Thomson J . Skinner?] to Theodore Sedgwick, February 27, 1804, Theodore Sedgwick Papers, Massachusetts H isto rical Society. adopted such a course, but 1n March much of the party began to feel th a t the southern candidate should have precedence—probably 1n an attem pt to s p lit the South between Jefferson and Pinckney—and the 132 trend of opinion turned toward the C arolinian. Not a ll F ed eralist opinion sh ifte d toward the southerner during March. Some, notably O liver Wolcott (who by th is time realized there was l i t t l e Immediate chance of breaking up the n a tio n ), hoped to u n ite northern Republicans and northern F ed eralists 1n a c o alitio n to support Burr o r someone e lse for President and thereby prevent Je ffe rso n 's e le c tio n . E fforts were made to e ffe c t th is union, but the ex istin g a n ti-V irg in ia s e n ti ment among northern Republicans was not of s u ffic ie n t In te n sity , among other th in g s, to enable a plan to succeed. For aw hile, some sentim ent also developed 1n Washington favoring O liver Ellsworth as the F ed eralist v1ce-pres1dent1a1 candidate, and John Marshall was even mentioned as a p referab le p resid en tial contender over Pinckney 133 by some New Englanders who favored a southern man. But F ed eralist consensus began to s e tt l e on Pinckney fo r President and King fo r V ice-President, though th ere was some fu rth e r wrangling over the m atter and a considerable lack of both enthusiasm and activ e p a r tlc l- 132 Columbian C en tln el, March 3, 1804, p. 2; March 24, 1804, p. 2; March 31, 1804, p. 2. Aurora, March 13, 1804, p. 2; April 7, 1804, p. 2. 133onver W olcott, J r . , to Roger Griswold (copy), March 3, 1804; Griswold to W olcott, March 11, 1804, O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Connecticut H isto rical Society. A lbert G allatin to Wilson Cary Nicholas, M py 3, 1804; John Taylor to Nicholas, M ay 28, 1804, Edgehl11-Randolph Papers, U niversity o f V irginia. William Loughton Smith to King, October 18, 1804, 1n C. R. King, Life and Correspon dence of Rufus King, IV, 427. 78 patlon 1n favor o f th is tic k e t. In fa c t, rig h t a t e lec tio n tim e, the Columbian Centlnel even talked o f attem pting to persuade John Adams to run. But the 14 F ed eralist e lec to rs voted (under the Twelfth Amendment) unanimously fo r Pinckney fo r President and King fo r the second o f f i c e . ^ 4 Thus, 1n 1804 one phase of the p o litic a l journey was completed: the congressional caucus—1n a regular and public form rath er than sec ret and Irre g u la r—had emerged w ithin the Republican party and e le cto ral unanimity attended the nominations. Both Jefferso n and Clinton received 162 electo ral votes. The Republican caucus from th is time forward would claim to be the "usual manner" fo r making nominations. The F e d e ra lists, on the other hand, never made any p resid en tial nominations by a congressional caucus a f te r 1800, though a resurgence In the party 1n 1808 and 1812 did produce more concerted e ffo rts to unite on sp e c ific candidates than occurred 1n 1804. From 1788 through 1804, the process of nominating candidates fo r P resident and V ice-President experienced a sig n ific a n t meta morphosis as 1t completed the f i r s t major step of I ts colorful p o litic a l odyssey. The loose, unstructured, and e s se n tia lly Informal character o f consensus nominations had given way 1n a series of stages to th e co-ordinated, stru c tu re d , and formal—as well as public—method of choosing candidates by congressional caucus. 134 C entlnel, October 31, 1804, p. 1; November 3 , 1804, p. 1. Petersen, S ta tis tic a l History of American P resid en tial E lectio n s, 13. 79 King Caucus, as the In s titu tio n la te r was named by I ts enemies, would dominate the sele ctio n of contenders fo r the country's two highest elected o ffic es fo r about a q u a rter century and would relinquish I ts rig h ts to nominating conventions with considerably more resistan ce than had the consensus form given way to the caucus. Engendered 1n the tra d itio n of American governmental pragmatism, the caucus was a p rac tic al device to achieve p ra c tic a l goals 1n a p rac tic al p o litic a l arena. Its d etracto rs would number many notable American fig u res, but w ith few exceptions the c r itic s acted on p ra c tic a l, ra th e r than th e o re tic a l, grounds o f opposition, lo fty phrases and su p e rfic ia lly a ltr u is tic arguments notw ithstanding. C H A PT E R II N O M IN A T IO N S IN 1808: C A U C U S R EPU B LICA N S V E R SU S IR R EG U LA R S A N D PURIST FEDERALISTS Thomas Je ffe rso n 's f i r s t term In the p re sid e n tial ch air was marked by considerable success and by an Increase 1n the re la tiv e power of the Republican party 1n the councils of the nation. But th is honeymoon came to an end during h is second four years 1n o ffic e . The uneasy peace between England and France gave way to renewed h o s ti l i t i e s , and America was again faced with the demanding task o f attem pting to m aintain n e u tra lity under the most trying circum stances. The embargo, employed as an economic weapon In the e f fo r t to stay out of Europe's stru g g le s, proved unpopular with su b stan tial segments of the people In the United S ta te s, nota bly those whose livelihood derived d ire c tly from shipping and commerce, and considerable p o litic a l unpleasantness—not to mention a F ed eralist resurgence—was p a rt of J e ffe rso n 's la s t term. More over, the Republicans were s p li t by the d efectio n , In fa c t though not In name, of a portion of the p a rty , Including men such as John Randolph. As Washington had longed fo r Mt. Vernon, so Jefferson decided to r e tir e to his own pastoral existence a t M on t i c e llo , away from the p artisan b itte rn e ss and s tr i f e encouraged by re su scita te d Federalism and by factionalism w ithin his own p arty. F ed eralist reanimation was aided by the embargo and various 80 associated foreign and domestic problems, w hile John Randolph made his notorious break with the adm inistration 1n 1806 on the basis of a number o f personal and public Issu es, both p ast and present. A ctually, Randolph's I n itia l overt s p l i t with Jeffersonian policy came In the spring of 1804 over the Yazoo fraud question, an Issue which e lic ite d his firm opposition again 1n February of 1805, when a sizeab le m ajority of the V irginia delegation 1n the House o f R epresentatives voted w ith hlm.^ This d iv isio n was to have sub s ta n tia l Im plications fo r the subject of p resid en tial nominations In 1808. Various Republicans viewed the schism with considerable dismay. John Taylor of Caroline wrote th a t W e are wreathing [s ic ] In these p arts under p o litic a l to rtu re , and s ta re lik e a man In a dark room. For niy own p a rt, were I Inclined to move, the fea r o f breaking m y shlnns [ s ic ] would keep me s t i l l . But when I see republicans, 1n"wRose p u rity I equally confided, dividing and accusing each o th er, I t persuades me th a t p rin c ip le Is a phantom under our form of government, as In others . . . . 2 Indeed, by 1804 the conservatives—known la te r as Old Republicans— w ithin the party had s ta rte d to prepare Monroe as th e ir man to Norman K. R lsjord, The 01d Republ1cans; Southern Conservatlsm 1n the Age o f Jefferso n (New York and London, 1965), 38-43. For oth er stu d ies o f the an ti-ad m in istratio n Republicans during th is period, see Noble E. Cunningham, J r . , "W ho Were the Quids?" M ississippi Valley H isto rical Review, L (June, 1963), 252-63; Harry Am m on, "James Monroe and the F lection o f 1808 1n V irg in ia," The William and Mary Q uarterly, Third S erie s, X X (January, 1963), 33-56. An ex cellen t work oh th e Republicans Is Cunningham's The Jefferso n ian Republicans In Power: Party O perations. 1801-1809 (Chapel H ill, 1963). John Davenport to Jonn Cotton Smith, February 2, 1805, John Cotton Smith Papers, Library o f Congress. Smith to David Daggett, March 17, 20, 1806, John Cotton Smith L e tte rs , Belnecke L ibrary, Yale U niversity. 2Taylor to Wilson Cary N icholas, April 14, 1806, Edgehlll- Randolph Papers, U niversity o f V irginia. succeed Jefferso n . This early groundwork was carried on q u ietly and w ithout fanfare u n til the sharp break 1n the p arty came 1n 1806. Moreover, Je ffe rso n 's decision 1n 1805 to r e tir e a f te r two terms presented the p ro b ab ility o f Madison, a man much d islik ed by Randolph and various other conservatives, f illin g the ro le of adm inistration h e ir apparent; Randolph feared th is prospect even before his Irrevocable break with the P resident and hoped Monroe could be put 1n the White House Instead. As 1n the case of Washington, Jefferson was urged to serve a th ird term by a v ariety o f people. Requests o f th is nature came from Pennsylvania and the Vermont le g is la tu re , to name two, but they were unable to a lte r the decision to r e t i r e . 3 By M ay o f 1806, the M onroe-for-Presldent fo rces, spearheaded by Randolph, were ra th e r activ e; one frien d wrote Randolph with an o ffe r to help carry the b a ttle fo r Monroe, noting th a t a ll partisan bridges had been burned behind th e ir advance: “You have passed the rublcon and Madison or yourself must [go] down."4 The V irginia p o li tic a l Caesar thought by June th a t prospects were favorable fo r Monroe In h is s ta te and talked o f a possible nomination o f his man by the Randolph to Joseph H. Nicholson, May 22, 1806, Shlppen Family Papers, Library o f Congress. The view th a t Randolph separated from Jefferson because he was given In su ffic ie n t power Is presented 1n William A. Burwell memoir, William A. Burwell Papers, Library of Congress. William Plumer Diary, December 11, 1806, William Plumer Papers, Library o f Congress. ^Randolph to James M . G arnett, M ay [ ? ] , 1806, Randolph-Garnett Letterbook, Library o f Congress. Joseph Bryan to Randolph (type s c r ip t) , April 23, 1806, John Randolph Papers, V irginia H istorical Society. le g is la tu r e .5 Though the campaigners were In motion, th e ir s u b je c t's consent to serve as a candidate had y et to be obtained. Monroe In dicated he was unwilling to run, however, In sistin g th a t he believed Madison had g re a te r claims to the o ffic e and th a t a d issid en t conten der nrlght well enable the F ed eralists to triumph over a divided Republican p arty. Though Monroe p referred to be withdrawn from the c o n te st, the movement In h is favor could not be e a sily squelched nor I ts advocates e a sily d eterred . Randolph, In fa c t, asserted th at Monroe's general a ttitu d e and sp e c ific reasons fo r wishing to be withdrawn made I t a ll the more evident th a t he should be 1n the race. Other means could be—and were—used to a l t e r the negative decision. The p o ten tial d issid en t candidate was 1n London on a diplom atic m ission, and he f e l t 1t was an In su lt to h is a b ilitie s when William Pinkney, the Maryland F ed e ra list, was appointed In early 1806 to a s s is t him 1n the negotiations with B rita in . L etters from those, both 1n and out of the Randolph c o te rie , who favored Monroe sought to use th is device to goad him Into becoming a candidate; In fa c t, Randolph him self had wanted the appointment, a fa c t which exacerbated the s itu a tio n . By mld-1807, L ittle to n W . Tazewell wrote Monroe th a t many Americans would present him to the nation as a p resid en tial contender and advised him to keep th a t p o s s ib ility open fo r fin al decision u n til a f te r his retu rn to the United S ta te s. The stage was 5 Randolph to Joseph H. Nicholson, June 3, 1806, Joseph H. Nicholson Papers, Library o f Congress. Ammon, "Monroe and the E lection o f 1808 In V irginia," 39. 84 thus s e t fo r a d issid en t Republican candidate from V irginia to challenge Madison, who was to become the p a rty 's reg u lar nominee.6 But Monroe was not the only Republican challenger who would en ter the co n test ag ain st Madison. There was talk by M ay o f 1807 of an e ffo rt 1n N ew York to sponsor George Clinton against the Secretary of S tate; th ere was a good p o s s ib ility th a t sig n ific a n t aid fo r th is p ro ject could be obtained In Pennsylvania through William Duane and h is various asso ciates. The e ffo rt would be fu eled , In p a r t, by jealousy In the Empire and Keystone s ta te s ag ain st V irginia dominance.^ John Nicholas o f N ew York feared , however, th at C lin to n 's p resid en tial pretensions might be ultim ately surrendered 1n return fo r the v1ce-pres1dency for h is nephew, D e W1tt C linton, and he even thought the younger Clinton might arrange for the V ice-President to endow him with the fa c tio n 's support fo r the f i r s t o ffic e , strange as such an Idea seemed.8 The l a tte r pro je c t—I f 1t ever ex isted —came to nothing. As electio n year ap proached, speculation about Je ffe rso n 's successor began to appear 1n some newspapers, and the name of the Vice-President was lis te d along with th e two V irginians. Henry Dearborn, John Langdon, Levi Lincoln, 8Monroe to Randolph, June 16, 1806; Randolph to Monroe, Septem ber 19, 1806; Tazewell to Monroe, May, 1807, James Monroe Papers, Library of Congress. R lsjord, The Old Republicans, 53-54, 74-75. ^The Enquirer (Richmond), November 27, 1807, p. 3. John Randolph to James Monroe, May 30, 1807, James Monroe Papers, Library o f Congress. Randolph to Joseph H. Nicholson, M ay 31, 1807, Joseph H. Nicholson Papers, Library o f Congress. 8John Nicholas to Robert Smith, June 6 , 1807; [N icholas] to , [1807?]; Nicholas to Wilson Cary Nicholas, February 5 , 1808, Carter-Smlth Family Papers, U niversity of V irginia. 85 Samuel Smith, James M 111edge, and Nathaniel Macon were a ll mentioned as p o s s ib ilitie s fo r th e second spot on the tic k e t, and Clinton could scarcely be dismissed as a p otential candidate fo r re -e le c tio n . Macon, a p o litic a l observer o f considerable ta le n t, predicted 1n e a rly Decem ber th a t a caucus would be held to decide th e p a rty 's nominees and f e l t the winner of the congressional decision would triumph 1n the e lectio n I ts e l f . H e seemed to believe th a t the p resid en tial contest was between Clinton and Madison, noting th a t 1 f e ith e r factio n refused to attend the caucus, th e ir boycott would be the equivalent o f admit tin g they were 1n the m inority. O n the v1ce-pres1dent1a1 question, Macon f e l t th a t both th e Cllntonlans and the Mad1son1ans would care very l i t t l e who was sele c te d as the running mate; th e main concern would be who could help the tic k e t th e most. H e thought Langdon would give much weight to a Madison s la te . Monroe was one possible choice to complete a Clinton tic k e t, but the Carolinian thought I t unlikely V irginia would support Monroe for th e second o ffic e when she could ra lly around Madison fo r the f i r s t . Macon viewed Thomas Sumter, a g Senator from South C arolina, as the stro n g est complement to C linton. While a few thought the party was s p l i t Into even more factions than those representing the three candidates, forces were put to work 1n an attempt to m ollify the p o ten tial d issid e n t contenders.^0 The Enquirer o f Richmond, devoted to Madison, worked on Monroe and g Macon to Joseph H. Nicholson, December 2, 1807, Joseph H. Nicholson Papers, L ibrary o f Congress. ^°John Taylor to James M . G arnett, December 14, 1807, John Taylor Papers, Duke U niversity. 86 his follow ers In December. In sistin g th a t the Randolph group wanted to use the returning diplomat ag ain st the Secretary o f S tate fo r th e ir own purposes, the paper urged th a t Monroe not allow him self to be run fo r President In 1808. I f he d id , h is fu tu re hopes would lik e ly be ended: " I f you a lly y o u rself to the m inority you must abandon your pretensions to the p re sid en tia l c h a ir." The same a r tic le even hinted th a t the Randolph factio n would soon drop Monroe and turn to the northern candidate, C lin to n .^ Members o f the m inority group 1n V irg in ia, though, worked to s t i r up support fo r Monroe and urged him to accept the challenge o f seeking the f i r s t o ffic e . Glowing, though exaggerated, reports were se n t to the prospective candidate about h is backing 1n V irginia. With th e likelihood o f a defeat In a congressional caucus, many Monroe men wished no such meeting to be h eld , but 1f 1 t were, Monroe should obey th e voice o f the people, whoever might be named as the regular 12 nominee. Some condemned the caucus as wrong on p rin c ip le and sug- 13 gested nomination by the s ta te s In stead . I t seems c e rta in , however, th a t they actu ally viewed the congressional choice of candidates as wrong more from a personal and pragmatic viewpoint ra th e r than from a th e o retic al analysis based on non-partisan altru ism . Other ad herents o f the d issid en t Virginian expected the caucus to be held ^ The Enquirer, December 17, 1807, p. 3. 12 Alexander McRae to James Monroe, December 22, 23, 31, 1807; James Monroe Papers, N ew York Public Library. 13 Creed Taylor to ------- , December 21, 1807, Creed Taylor Papers, U niversity o f V irginia. 87 and thought prospects looked somewhat dim fo r th e ir man,14 In the midst of th is u n settled s itu a tio n , a rumor even went out to some th a t Jefferson would seek re -e le c tio n I f America became enmeshed In w ar.15 Shortly a f te r 1808 dawned, a fa lse rep o rt was circu lated In N ew York th a t a congressional caucus had already met and nominated a tic k e t o f Madison and D e W itt C linton. Another rumor was spread th a t the Republican congressmen had decided to recommend George Clinton fo r P resident. N o such nominations had been made, o f course, but a F ed eralist paper accused Jefferson o f attem pting, 1n e f fe c t, to name Madison 1n an announcement about th e f i r s t of the year 1n which the President declared o f fic ia lly his decision not to seek re -e le c tio n . Though avoiding a sp e c ific public recommendation o f the Secretary o f S ta te , Jefferson had Implied th a t Clinton was u n fit fo r the po sitio n because of h is age and In firm itie s . Since Madison was expected to be a candidate, the sto ry which appeared to downgrade George Clinton seemed tantamount to a nomination of the V irginian. But James Cheetham, e d ito r o f the American C itizen of New York, seemed c le arly determined to support the V ice-President 1n a bid fo r the top o ffic e , and some f e l t th a t Clinton was the only man In nomination a t th is tim e. One F ed eralist w rite r thought the 14John Clopton to Alexander McRae, December 25, 1807, James Monroe Papers, Library o f Congress. 15John Davenport to John Cotton Smith, December 15, 1807, John Cotton Smith Papers, Library o f Congress. N ew Yorker could claim to be the legitim ate candidate; anyone coming Into the race a f te r th is time could be tre ate d by the Clinton forces as the d issid en t Republican who would be blamed fo r s p littin g the p arty . Such reasoning was le ss than p ercep tiv e, but 1t I llu s tr a te s the v ariety o f opinions which ex isted a t th is tlm eJ® A N ew York ob serv er warned Madison o f the p o ten tial danger: taking advantage o f the discontent aroused among those Involved In commerce-oriented a c tiv itie s by th e embargo, the CUntonlans were readying th e ir ch ie f to oppose Madison, possibly with the aid of some F ed eralists In the North. Thus, th e p o s s ib ility o f a F e d e ra list-d issid e n t Republican c o a litio n was considered re la tiv e ly early 1n the c o n te st.* 7 The b a ttle lin es were p re tty c le arly drawn, then, as electio n year got under way: Madison would be the adm inistration h e ir ap p aren t, while th e N ew York based Clintonian factio n and the Randolph group, centered In V irginia, would operate as foci o f d issid en t Re publican e ffo rts to overturn the regular p o litic a l applecart represented by th e congressional nomination. But the question o f nominations o f th e various contenders remained to be s e ttle d , and many f e l t ra th e r uncertain about who would fin a lly emerge from th e p artisan stru g g le to occupy the White House. In f a c t, Monroe did not *®New-York Commercial A dvertiser, January 5, 1808, p. 3. N ew York Evening P o st, January 6, 1808, p. 3. Charles A. Foote to Ebenezer Foote, January 8, 1808, F ed eralist L e tte rs , U niversity o f V irginia. ^Morgan Lewis to James Madison, January 9, 1808, James Madison Papers, Library o f Congress. John P. Van Ness to William P. Van Ness, January 11* 1808, William P. Van Ness Papers, N ew York Public L ibrary. 89 agree to be a candidate u n til a fte r he returned to America from Eng land In December o f 1807; before th a t time he had generally Indicated an unw illingness to run, but the weak reception he received 1n Washington, along w ith previous a ffro n ts, caused the disappointed diplomat to determine to l e t his name be used. Though not activ ely seeking the nomination, he would accept 1 t. C linton, however, was less 18 re stra in e d , and Madison was c le a rly w illin g to be In the co n test. The supporters of Madison, p a rtic u la rly Wilson Cary Nicholas and Warren Branch G iles, worked In d u strio u sly to ensure th a t th e ir candidate would be chosen by both th e congressional caucus and the V irginia le g is la tiv e caucus, thereby castin g him as the regular nominee as well as dealing Monroe a mortal blow by alien atin g his own s ta te . Laboring with considerable efficien c y In lin in g up con gressional support, the Madisonian lieu ten an ts planned an early caucus 1n Washington 1n the expectation th a t the naming o f th e ir man 1n the c ap ita l would clinch Ms nomination In V irginia, where Monroe's supporters were working vigorously. In th e absence of moral suasion fo r Madison from Congress, the Monroe leaders In Richmond might succeed 1n nominating th e ir chief through a le g is la tiv e caucus; congressional sele ctio n o f Madison, however, would help prevent such a p o s s ib ility . Word from V irginia prodded Madison backers 1n Congress 18 Joseph C. Cabell to Isaac A. Coles, January 8, 1808, Cabell Family Papers, U niversity o f V irginia. George Joy to James Madison, January 28, 1808, James Madison Papers, Library o f Congress. Am m on, "James Monroe and th e Election o f 1808 In V irg in ia," 41-43. 90 to act as soon as p o ssib le, while numerous m issives were sent from Washington before the caucus met to assure members o f the V irginia le g is la tu re th a t the preponderance o f opinion from o th er Republican 19 s ta te s favored the Secretary. On another fro n t, a rep o rt from Washington said th at the N ew York delegation was working to bring Clinton forward as the pres1den> tla l nominee, while Monroe was mentioned as h is running mate—w ith the understanding Clinton would step asid e 1n h is favor a fte r four years. The Cl1nton1ans were pressing the c o a litio n tic k e t on th e ir own; Monroe's advisors were n o t, esp ecially a t th is tim e, amenable to an arrangement awarding th e ir man second place, and no agreement had 20 th erefo re been made between the two fa c tio n s. But the N ew Yorkers' hopes o f e ffec tin g the desired nomination quickly faded, and they seem to have decided to seek a compromise with the Madisonian reg u lars. One C lintonian, Joslah Masters of N ew York, la te r Indicated th a t p rio r to the caucus those Empire s ta te men o f his factio n —most of the congressional delegation—had negotiated with Madison's c lo se st friends with a design to avoid a clash and to promote unity. He said th e Clinton backers urged the Mad1son1ans to re fra in from 19 William H. Cabell to Joseph H. Nicholson, January 9, 1808, William H. Cabell Personal Papers M iscellaneous, Library o f Congress. William A. Burwell memoir, William A. Burwell Papers, Library o f Congress. 20 W alter Jones to Monroe, January 18, 1808, James Monroe Papers, Library o f Congres. making a sp ec ific nomination; In stead , l e t both contenders be recommended as su ita b le asp iran ts fo r the o ffic e , and allow the people to make the fin a l decision. I f th is compromise were fo l- 21 lowed, the N ew Yorkers pledged support to the winner. But th is and o ther proposals—Including a rumored o ffe r by the Clinton group to withdraw th e ir ch ief from the p resid en tial contest 1n return fo r D e W1tt C lin to n 's nomination fo r the second o ffic e —were reported as being rejected . Expecting e ffo rts 1n Washington to prove f r u itle s s , some e d ito ria l opinion favoring Clinton sought to demean the congres sional nomination In advance, providing some early p o litic a l salvos In what was la te r to become a vicious barrage against the caucus system. A F ed eralist paper, delighted a t the evident factionalism In Repub lican ranks, joined In the fracas by condemning the maneuvering around the nomination as resembling "the old In trig u es fo r a C ardinal's h a t." 22 In V irginia, meanwhile, the Monroe adherents continued to be a c tiv e . The F ed eralists 1n the le g isla tu re had acted favorably toward the d issid en t Republican, hoping to exacerbate In tra -p arty tension. But the s ta te le g is la tiv e caucus designed to resolve the question was scheduled fo r January 28. Faced with such a c r itic a l meeting, the Monroe forces designed a sub rosa scheme to throw the decision to th e ir fa v o rite . In addition to working hard ^M asters to William P a ttrlc k , September 28, 1808, 1n the N ew York Evening P o st, October 31, 1808, p. 3. 22 Evening P o st, January 12, 1808, pp. 2-3. to convince members to vote fo r Monroe, they apparently arranged for a number o f non-members from Richmond to atten d and vote 1n the caucus and thereby overwhelm the Madison fa c tio n . In v itatio n s to such Irre g u la rs were also d irected to other places. Some thought Monroe might well win a contest played under such ground rules. On January 20, however, the plan was discovered; deciding th at I t was unnecessary to hold the V irginia meeting a f te r news of the Washington nominations was av ailab le and hoping acting to prevent the Monroelte scheme from being Implemented, th e MadlsoMans sent In v ita tio n s on January 21 to those favoring th e ir candidate to meet a t the Bell Tavern th a t very evening. Monroe's people, by c a llin g a general caucus fo r the same day, attem pted to block th is su rp rise move to counteract th e ir design, but th e ir e ffo rts 22 fa ile d . Two separate caucuses were held on January 21. About 124 members met a t Bell Tavern, where Madison was unanimously nominated and a s la t e o f e le c to rs chosen. A rump meeting o f remaining le g is lato rs met a t th e c a p lto l, where the vote to ta le d 57 fo r Monroe and 10 fo r Madison; the formation o f the ele c to ra l tic k e t was postponed. This pro-Monroe group gathered again on January 23 and 25 to choose th e ir e le c to rs and to appoint corresponding committees—a central committee and one fo r each county. The Madlson-Monroe s p li t In the 22 Frederick Hamilton to David Campbell, December 22, 1807; January 16, 25, 1808, David Campbell Papers, Duke U niversity. Joseph C. Cabell to Isaac A. Coles, January 22, 1808, Cabell Family Papers, U niversity of V irginia. 93 Old Dominion revealed a crack o f considerable proportions In the Richmond Junto: such notables as George Hay ( la te r Monroe's son-in- law ), Benjamin W . Leigh, Alexander McRae, John Brockenbrough, John C larke, and Edward C. Stanard broke ranks to back Monroe, some of them serving on the V irginia central committee. Despite th e ir committees and e le c to ra l tic k e t, the Monroe movement was severely h u rt by the poor showing on th e ir home grounds. Though the m inority caucus o f le g isla to rs proved to be Monroe's most s ig n ific a n t noml- 23 n atio n , Madison emerged well ahead of the game. While the excitem ent was occurring 1n Richmond, the p o litic a l pot was a lso coming to a boll In Washington. A cap ital correspon dent wrote a F ed eralist paper th a t many prelim inary caucuses were being held there preparatory to fu ll nominations and suggested th a t Republicans had agreed to support Madison fo r P resident and Henry Dearborn fo r the second spot. One conclave supposedly showed th a t C lin to n 's p re sid en tial stock was high In only th ree s ta te s —N ew York, Pennsylvania, and N ew Jersey—and he th erefo re stood l i t t l e chance. The prospective tic k e ts were ra th e r Inaccurately reported, but the 23 National In te llig e n c e r (Washington, D. C .), January 27, 1808, p. 3; January 29, 1808, p. 3; February 1, 1808, p. 3. The Enquirer, January 23, 1808, p. 3; January 26, 1808, p. 3. Columbian Centlnel (Boston), February 10, 1808, p. 2; February 13, 1808, p. 2. Riw York Evening P o st, March 6, 1816, p. 2. A s lig h t d isp a rity e x ists In reports on the number attending the Bell meeting. The In te llig e n c e r gave 124 In the January 27 Issu e, and 123 In the January 29 paper. The Centlnel a r tic le lis te d 128. See also Harry Ammon, "The Richmond Ju n to , 18b0-1824," The V irginia Magazine o f H istory and Biography. LXI (October, 1953), 403-5; Ammon, '‘James Monroe and the E lection o f 1808 In V irginia," 45-46. 94 p artisa n hustling the w rite r mentioned was c h a ra c te ris tic of the 24 Intensive a c tiv itie s under way a t the n a tio n 's p o litic a l fulcrum. A s lig h tly la te r m issive from a Washington observer also re ported th a t "Minor caucuses . . . are very frequent, and the business o f In trig u e 1s going on very b ris k ." The Mad1son1ans were appar en tly seeking to e ffe c t the congressional nomination soon, while a Republican factio n opposed to him hoped fo r delay to marshall th e ir fo rces. Though there were th ree contenders fo r the p resid en tial c h a ir, the v ice-p resid en tial question seemed confused by an embarrass ment o f ric h es: th ere were "almost as many candidates as s ta te s . Since the c o n stitu tio n was a lte re d so as to require a designation of the votes, the o ffic e of V ice-President has been held p re tty cheap. I ts principal use seems to be as an Instrument o f In trig u e fo r the presidency." The w rite r mentioned John M llledge, Charles Pinckney, Nathaniel Macon, James Sloan, D e W1tt C linton, Gideon Granger, Levi Lincoln, and Stephen R. Bradley as p o ten tial contenders and noted the apparent burgeoning of a Virginia-New York axis In which the two s ta te s seemed to think they should control the choice o f the n a tio n 's top two o f f ic e r s .25 The s itu a tio n was In d e fin ite , but there were several rumors about the course to be followed by Republicans opposed to Madison. One possible bargain was th a t 1n return fo r a nomination o f George 24Repr1nted 1n the New-York Commercial A dvertiser, January 14, 1808, p. 3. 25Repr1nted in the N ew York Evening P o st, January 28, 1808, p. 3. 95 Clinton fo r P resident by the Pennsylvania le g is la tu re , N ew York would jo in the Keystone s ta te In attem pting to le g is la te a moving o f the ca p ita l to P hiladelphia; the location o f the cap ital did come up In Congress during th is season, and rep o rts usually linked 1t somehow with the p resid en tial question. Nothing substantive re su lted from these e f f o r ts , however. But the congressmen opposed to Madison had—as noted already—fa ile d to organize, despite the 26 rumor naming Monroe as a possible running mate on a Clinton tic k e t. One frien d urged Monroe to defer his pretensions to the top o ffic e u n til Madison had served. The disappointed diplomat rep lied th a t he had refrain ed from e ith e r o fferin g him self fo r P resident or Vice- P resident or making a c o a litio n with anyone. But he would heed the c all o f the people I f 1t arrived and hence was a s o rt of "activ e- passive" contender; Monroe c le arly was In the race, though he claimed others had blown the trumpet which called him Into the f ie ld .27 But dress rehearsals were near th e ir conclusion, and on January 19, Stephen R. Bradley, basing his au th o rity on h is service as 26Jeremiah Morrow to Thomas Worthington (copy), January 20, 1808, Thomas Worthington Papers, Ohio H isto rical Society. Nathaniel Macon to Joseph H. Nicholson, February 9 , 1808, Joseph H. Nicholson Papers, Library o f Congress. Samuel Taggart to John Taylor, January 19, 1808, In George H. Hayes, e d ., "L etters o f Samuel Taggart," American Ant1quar1am Society Proceedings, N ew S e rie s, XXXIII (1923), 299T The E n q u ire r,J a n u a ry 19. 1808. o. 3. Columbian C entlnel, February 17,T808V p. 2. ---------------------------- 27Wa1ter Jones to Monroe, January 18, 20, 1808, James Monroe Papers, Library o f Congress. Monroe to Jones (photocopy), January 24, 1808, James Monroe Papers, U niversity o f V irginia. 96 chairman o f the caucus o f 1804, sent notices to a ll Republican members and three borderline F ed eralists—notably John Quincy Adams— fo r a meeting 1n the Senate chamber on the evening o f January 23. The n otice was a lso posted 1n Congress and published 1n newspapers. Some Republican members who opposed th e caucus, generally because they favored Clinton or Monroe, reacted ra th e r vigorously to B radley's actio n . R epresentative Edwin Gray, a Monroe supporter from V irginia, sen t a m issive o f sharp reb u ttal to Bradley which denounced the caucus In sweeping terms. He In siste d th a t congressional nominations Involved "midnight Intrigues . . . [which usurped] the r ig h t, which belongs alone to the people, of selectin g proper persons to f i l l the Important o ffic e s o f President and V ice-P resident." In ad d itio n , Gray denied th a t Bradley had any rig h t to summon a nominating cau- 28 cus. A C lintonian, Representative Joslah Masters of N ew York, went even fu rth e r by posting on January 21 next to the caucus announcements In the Congress h a ll an In v itatio n to stay away from the meeting. Paraphrasing B radley's c irc u la r, Masters put a reverse tw ist on the o rig in al m aterial: In pursuance of a sim ilar power vested 1n me, with th a t assumed by Stephen R. Bradley o f the sen ate, contrary to the tru e p rin c ip les o f th e c o n stitu tio n , I deem 1 t expedient, fo r the pur pose of not nominating any ch aracters fo r president and vice p resid en t . . . not to call a convention, a lia s caucus, to P r i n t e d caucus In v ita tio n , January 19, 1808; Gray to Bradley, January 21, 1808, Edwin Gray Papers, Duke U niversity. James A. Bayard to Andrew Bayard, January 21, 1808, James A. and Richard H. Bayard Papers, Library o f Congress. Charles Francis Adams, e d ., Memoirs o f John Quincy Adams, Comprising Portions o f His Diary from T79!T~Eo 1BW TT? vol sT.' FFl1 adel on! a . 1574-1877V. T r5 0 S -6 . The Enquirer, January 26, 1808, p. 3. Aurora (P h ilad elp h ia), January 26, 1808, p. 3. 97 meet 1n the senate chamber on Saturday the 23d [s ic ] In sta n t, a t 6:00 O 'clock, P.M. a t which time and place the personal attendance of the said republican members Is, not requested, to aid the unconstitutional meeting sol1c1ted“ B y th e said Stephen R. Bradley, and a t which time and place I hereby request they w ill not a tten d , to aid and sanction an In frin g e ment o f one o f the most Important featu res and p rin cip les 1n the co n stitu tio n o f the United S ta te s. This notice was published In a F ed eralist paper In N ew York, sug gesting th a t the m inority p arty as well as the Clinton and Monroe wings of the dominant group cle a rly Intended to make anti-caucus a s ig n ific a n t weapon 1n th e ir arsenal to be used against Madison 29 and the party reg u lars. Despite the Cllnton-Monroe a g ita tio n , about 93 congressmen and the te r r ito r ia l delegate from Indiana met on the appointed evening. Bradley, 1n view o f the c ritic ism of h is authority to call the m eeting, Immediately declared h is power a t an end, but he was then elected chairman, while Richard M . Johnson o f Kentucky was named secretary . On a motion of Senator John Pope of Kentucky, the caucus proceeded to c a st th e ir votes fo r the p resid en tial standard- bearer w ithout discussion o r pre-nom ination: Madison received 83; George C linton, 3; Monroe, 3; and 5 abstained. Doubtless hoping to c o n c ilia te the C lintonian fa c tio n , the obviously pro-Mad1son gathering then voted the New Yorker as th e ir man for the second o ffic e , giving him 79 b a llo ts compared to 5 fo r John Langdon, 3 fo r Henry Dearborn, and 1 fo r John Quincy Adams. O n a motion of Wilson Cary N icholas, a committee of correspondence composed of 15 members repre- 29 N ew York Commercial A dvertiser, January 26, 1808, p. 3. 98 sentlng each s ta te except Connecticut and Delaware—n e ith e r of which had any Republican congressmen—was appointed to f i l l any vacancy on the tic k e t which might re s u lt from the death o f e ith e r o f the two candidates. William Branch Giles successfully sponsored a resolution recommending the Madlson-CHnton tic k e t to the people, declaring th a t the caucus p a rtic ip a n ts were acting 1n th e ir p riv a te , not pu b lic, c ap a c itie s; they u tiliz e d the congressional nominating system "from the n ecessity of th e case; from a deep conviction o f the Importance of union . . . and as being the most p racticab le mode of consulting and respecting the wishes of a l l . " 30 Of the 176 members o f Congress, about 146 were Republicans. Allowing fo r John Quincy Adams, who by attending read him self out of the F ed eralist p arty —a t le a st In some eyes—and the Indiana delegate, 92 of th e 146 Republicans were a t the caucus. Having fa ile d to arrange a s a tisfa c to ry compromise with the Mad1son1ans p rio r to the caucus and facing c e rta in d efeat, the CUntonlans generally boycotted the meeting; as a re su lt only one member of N ew York's large delegation was p resen t. Most Monroe backers fo l- 3 National In te llig e n c e r, January 25, 1808, p. 2; March 16, 1808, p . T The E nquirer, January 28, 1808, p. 3. N iles' Weekly R egister, September 18, 1824, p. 33. Benjamin Howard to [James B reckinridge], January 27, 1808, James Breckinridge Correspondence, U niversity o f V irginia. N ew York Evening P o st. February 1, 1808, p. 3. A pro*y vote fo r Madison was not accepted. For a 11st of the committee o f correspondence and arrangement, see Cunningham, The Jeffersonlan Republ1 cans. 1801-1809, 114. There was a s lig h t disagreement on th e number present. T he'total of 94 was computed by Secretary R. M . Johnson on March 12, while John Quincy Adams reported on the n ig h t o f the caucus th at the p a rtic ip a n ts numbered 89. lowed the same course, as about a th ird of V irg in ia's congressmen stayed away. The m issing members from these s ta te s rep resen tatlv e o f Clinton and Monroe composed approximately a m ajority o f those not attending. The In ten tio n al a ^ e n te e s who favored the Irre g u la r candidates no doubt f e l t In betv r position to a ttac k the congres sional nomination as one ta c tic in i:>»>1r In tra -p a rty war on Madison. Despite the p a rtia l boycott, the regular candidate received a m ajority o f the to ta l Republican membership. But there seems to have been some confusion on the v ice-p resid en tial question: several rep o rts Indica ted th a t Clinton had been supported only because 1 t was thought he would decline the o ffe r, a t which time the regulars would have lik e ly 31 turned to John Langdon. Shortly a f te r the nomination, 1 t was under stood 1n some c irc le s th a t the V ice-President would accept; despite some unhappiness on the p a rt of many eastern members a t th is pros p e c t, Thomas Jefferso n f e l t C lin to n 's candidacy as the second man on the caucus tic k e t would end a ll opposition to Madison. But the crafty N ew Yorker decided n eith er to accept nor to decline fo r the moment, thereby I r r ita tin g and embarrassing many Republicans who, 1f they wanted to make another nomination, were blocked fo r 31 James H lllhouse to Simeon Baldwin, January 27, 1808, Baldwin Family Papers, S te rlin g L ibrary, Yale U niversity. John Randolph to Joseph S c o tt, January 25, 1808, John Randolph L e tte rs , Huntington Library. K illian K. Van Ronsselaer to John Sanders, January 25, 1808, Kill1am K. Van Rensselaer Miscellaneous M anuscripts, New-York H istorical Society. Samuel H. Taggart to John Taylor, January 27, 1808, 1n Haynes, "L etters o f Samuel Taggart," 303. National I n te l lig en cer, March 16, 1808, p. 3. The Enquirer, February IV, 1808, p. 3. 5he rep o rt sa id Adams abstained from voting. Columbian Centlnel (Boston), February 20, 1808, p. 2. 100 the time being by C lin to n 's maneuver w ithout being c e rta in he would fin a lly agree. Thus the v ice-p resid en tial questions and C lin to n 's 32 opposition s t i l l remained somewhat flu id . But what o f the F ed eralists during th is season o f p o litic a l scrambling and maneuvering? The few congressmen of the opposition p arty—about 30 In 1808—were le ss than o p tim istic as the p resid en tial year got under way. They were y e t to experience the fu ll Impact of the embargo, voted Into law by Congress la te 1n 1807, and the concomitant resurgence o f th e ir adynamic p arty. Their a ttitu d e Is perhaps best I llu s tra te d by a reverse paraphrase o f the p la in tiv e song o f an American folk hero: "Where never 1s heard an encouraging word, and the skies appear cloudy a ll day." Timothy Pickering, 1n fa c t, wrote a pragmatic plea from Washington, In sistin g th a t "the Federa l i s t s here are In point o f numbers so u tte rly Impotent . . . [th a t] nothing would be more remote . . . than to s e t up candidates of th e ir own fo r P resident and V ice-President. They have only a choice o f e v ils ." As In 1804, th ere would be no F ed eralist congressional nomi nating caucus, and circumstances a t th is time Indicated the party might well pragm atically align I t s e l f with the le a s t objectionable o f the th re e Republican contenders. Pickering f e l t h is party had strong objections to Clinton and to Madison: to Clinton because o f his age and the fefcr th a t D e W itt Clinton would be de facto P resident I f his uncle were 1n the White House and to Madison because I t was f e l t 32 Jefferson to Thomas Mann Randolph, January 26, 1808, Thomas Jefferson Papers, Library o f Congress. James Taylor to Harry Innes, December 29, 1807, Harry Innes Papers, Library of Congress. George Clinton to D e W1tt C linton, February 13, 1808, D e W1tt Clinton Papers, Columbia U niversity. he would be dominated by Jefferson from M ontlcello. The F e d e ra lists, a t le a s t those In the cap ital and many o f those 1n V irg in ia, preferred Monroe o f the three hopefuls. While adm itting the V irginia d issid en t had le ss learning than the Secretary o f S ta te , Pickering In siste d th a t Monroe was more p ra c tic a l and honest than e ith e r of the other candidates and had been purged of pro-French prejudice—a feelin g 33 which he thought Madison s t i l l possessed 1n abundance. There was also some ta lk In Washington during e arly January th a t the party would support John Quincy Adams fo r the vice-presidency, but such 34 sentim ent was b lasted by Adams' attendance a t the Republican caucus. But F ed eralist policy was by no means system atically stru ctu red a t th is p o in t, and the situ a tio n was to change s u ffic ie n tly during the course of the year to prevent th is early feeling fo r Monroe from maturing Into u n ified support. As would be expected, responses to the caucus 1n the Immediate post-caucus period varied larg ely according to the p artisan In te re sts o f the people Involved. Journals and Individuals who supported Madison n a tu rally lik ed the re s u lt o f the congressional nomination and generally spoke In favor o f th is method of narrowing th e number o f candidates. A n a r tic le prepared fo r the National In te llig e n c e r suggested th ree ways a p resid en tial campaign could be opened: by 33 Pickering to Charles W . Hare, January 16, 1808; Edward Carrington to P ickering, January 30, 1808, Timothy Pickering Papers, Massachusetts H isto rical Society. Barent G ardlnler to Rufus King, January 16, 1808, In Charles R. King, e d ., Life and Correspondence o f Rufus King, (6 v o ls ., N ew York,1894-1900), V, 58. 34 N ew York Commercial A dvertiser, January 14, 1808, p. 3. nominations through local groups 1n each s ta te , by choice o f can didates through the s ta te le g is la tu re s , and by congressional caucus. All these methods had f a u lts , but the nomination by Congress had 35 the fewest. Even the P hiladelphia Aurora, whose e d ito r adm itted a preference fo r both Clinton and Monroe over Madison, declared 1n favor o f his nomination as being "made In the usual manner, since 35 no o th er or b e tte r manner has been provided by th e c o n stitu tio n . C olvin's Weekly R eg ister, to c ite another example, referred to the congressional nomination as "a good old custom which has prevented In trig u e and d istra c tio n among republicans" and branded those opposed to the caucus as m otivated by "the foul monster Ambition" 1n seeking to advance a candidate o th er than Madison.37 Though allowing a r tic le s opposed to the caucus, The Enquirer of Richmond a lso favored the established method, as did o th er adm inistration presses g e n e ra lly .38 Those Republicans who supported Clinton or Monroe, plus the F ed eralists, used w arfare ag ain st the caucus as an Important theme 1n th e ir attack s on Madison. John Randolph, though defending the system 1n 1804, denounced 1t In 1808. A Monroelte friend of 35Nat1ona1 In te llig e n c e r, February 8 , 1808, p. 1. 3^Aurora, January 28, 1808, p. 2; March 28, 1808, p. 3. 37Colv1n's Weekly R eg ister, January 23, 1808, p. 32; January 30, 1808, pp. 43-45; February &, 1808, pp. 63-64; February 20, 1808, pp. 90-91. 38The Enquirer, February 2 , 1808, p. 3; February 6 , 1808, pp. 2-3; February 11, 1808, pp. 2-3. The February 11 Issue a lso denounced Joslah Masters fo r h is opposition to the nomination. 103 Randolph wrote encouragement against the caucus, while confessing 30 th a t the nomination would aid Madison 1n carrying the co n test. Some Monroe men 1n V irginia were able to get th e ir anti-caucus arguments 1n The E nquirer, Including the a ssertio n th a t the weakened s ta te of the Federal p arty made such a nomination u n n ecessary .^ The Boston Columbian C entlnel, a F ed eralist paper, p rinted a le t t e r from Washington which suggested th a t the national le g isla tu re was stepping beyond I ts au th o rity by making nominations of the top executive o ffic e r: "the best business transacted here 1s P[res1dent] Making; a t which manufacture Journeymen receive forty-tw o d o llars per w eek."^ Another Federal p r in t, the N ew York Evening Post rep rin ted a rtic le s from the Baltimore Whig, a strong Clinton jo u rn al, which spoke uncompromising execrations against both the caucus and the man who convened 1 t, Stephen R. Bradley. One passage demanded th a t Every republican ought to frown Indignantly upon the wretch, who attem pts to e re c t the Congress o f the United S ta te s, Into an In itia to ry or nominating convention. Members of Congress are but the servants of the people. Shall they then, D A R E to usurp the all-Im p o rtan t, weighty power of Imposing the Chief M agistrate o f the Union upon us: —God fo rb id !—God spare us from such cabals! ^Randolph to Joseph S co tt, January 25, 1808, John Randolph L e tte rs, Huntington Library* John Nicholas to Wilson Cary Nicholas, February 1, 1808, Wilson Cary Nicholas Papers, Library o f Congress. Joseph Bryan to John Randolph, January 31, February 23, 1808, Bryan Family Papers, V irginia S tate Library. ^^The Engulrer, January 30, 1808, pp. 2-3; February 9, 1808, pp. 2-3; February 16, 1808, p. 2. ^Columbian C entlnel, February 6, 1808, p. 2. 104 Another a r tic le attempted to drag the red herring of a n tl- caucus across the scene to mask the Whig's p ra c tic a l and p artisan opposition to Madison. Invoking the memory o f George Washington— though, somewhat su rp risin g ly , not motherhood, God, or the fla g — the author sen t fo rth his p la in tiv e p ro te st th a t the caucus 1f acquiesced In , q u ie tly by th e people, w ill p ro strate republicanism In th is land . . . . The objection 1s not so much to Mr. Madison as to . . . the anti-republican manner, 1n which he was forced, o r attempted to be forced on the nation. I f elec tio n dwindles Into nomination . . . and nomination In to appointment—then shall Washington have fought 1n vain. The paper also rep rin ted sim ilar a r tic le s from o th er presses. One su ccin ctly condemned the power assumed by the caucus as "a combination o f p rin c ip le and p ra c tice , th e most odious and d e stru c tiv e , th a t ever actuated the mind of man." In ad d itio n , a C lln to n lan 's le t t e r was published which excoriated the system as being unauthorized by the C o n stitu tio n , contravening th e provision ag ain st a congressman serving as an e le c to r, choosing a man less q u a lifie d than the Incumbent Vice- 42 P resid en t, and continuing the domination of V irginia. The Evening Post In I ts e ffo rts against the caucus f e l t obliged to make some unsavory and p artisan comparisons concerning the proper and the actual ro le o f Congress 1n the p resid en tial selectio n process: Thus our good democratic rep resen tativ es, Instead of making laws are busy 1n making a president and vice president fo r us. W hen we remember and r e fle c t how these same representatives used to f l a t t e r us, the people, by sty lin g us th e ir m asters, and themselves our serv an ts, I t cannot but s trik e us as a l i t t l e queer . . . to behold them, the serv an ts, thus creating a m aster [the caucus] over th e ir m asters. ^New York Evening P o st, February 1» 1808, pp. 2-3; February 2, 180 8 ^0 2 ; February 4 ,1 8 0 8 , p. 2; February 5, 1808, p. 3; February 105 Moreover, the Post also launched some su b stan tial verbal a r tille r y ag ain st the V irginia dynasty and the Virginia-New York axis In which the Empire s ta te always seemed to be relegated to a s o rt of p o litic a l bridesmaid to the Old Dominion: " I t seems admitted a t the Palace In Washington, th a t New-York may take rank as a s ta te o f the second o rd er, I f the f i r s t rank be yield ed to the s ta te of V irginia." Thinking of s ta te pride as well as s tir r in g Republican dissension, another Post Issue provided a metaphoric p ictu re Illu s tra tin g the Imagination o f a so rt o f p o litic a l P. T. Bamum: an a r tic le en t i t l e d "P o litic a l tumbling" In siste d th a t A fter various fe a ts of ground tumbling a t Washington, something more lo fty Is now announced as worthy o f public a tte n tio n . I t Is given out . . . th a t James Madison, a fte r springing up from the hands o f Stephen R. Bradley, 1s to throw a somerset over the head of George Clinton and v au lt Into th e p resid en tial ch air. Thus was anti-V irginia combined with anti-caucus by some northern 43 p artisan s opposed to Madison. The f i r s t b a ttle o f the Internecine Republican war fo r the White House had been won by th e Madisonian forces despite the e ffo rts against them both before and a f te r the Washington nomination. The CUntonlans and Monroeltes were faced with three a lte rn a tiv e s: surren d er, continuation of the fig h t sep a rately , o r co-operation between the two fa ctio n s—and perhaps with the F e d e ra lists. One frien d asked Monroe to stand aside fo r a s tr i c t l y s e lfis h reason: 1f he ran , d efeat and the end of h is p resid en tial hopes seemed c e rta in . 43 N ew York Evening Post, January 29, 1808, p. 3; February 1, 1808, p. 2. -------- Another agreed, feelin g th a t the d issid e n t contender had l i t t l e chance a f te r losing 1n the congressional caucus and the V irginia le g is la tiv e caucus as w e ll.4* But 1n la te January the Clinton and Monroe factions 1n Washington talked confidently—whether they f e l t th a t way o r not. Word from N ew York Indicated C lin to n 's friends were continuing to push his candidacy, though he had not received—nor would he throughout the campaign—a su b stan tial noml- 45 nation. Indeed, the V ice-P resident's nominations fo r the f i r s t o ffic e were re s tric te d to local meetings and newspaper endorse ments. Monroe's were much the same, with the exception of his sele ctio n by a m inority of the V irginia le g is la tu re . Though President Jefferson also attem pted to m ollify Monroe and Clinton 46 to secure th e ir w ithdraw al, they refused to comply. Thus, d espite some reports and requests th a t Monroe drop out o f the co n test, I t became evident th a t the d issid en t factions would avoid the surrender choice, but which of the l a t t e r two options would they fo l 4 4 John Taylor to Monroe, February 22, 1808; M . Clay to Monroe, February 29, 1808, James Monroe Papers, Library o f Congress. 45 John Nicholas to Wilson Cary Nicholas, February 9, 1808; Theodore Armlstead to [Wilson Cary N icholas], February 15, 1808, Wilson Cary Nicholas Papers, Library o f Congress. A lbert McRae to L ittle to n W . Tazewell, February 19, 1808, Tazewell Family Papers, V irginia S tate L ibrary. 46Jefferson to Monroe (p rin te d ), February 18, 1808; Monroe to Jefferson (p rin te d ), February 27, 1808, James Madison Papers, Library o f Congress. Jefferson to Monroe (copy), February 18, 1808, Thomas Jefferso n Papers, Library o f Congress. 107 low? Not long a f te r the congressional caucus* th ere was some opinion which Indicated a Monroe-Cl1nton c o a litio n was 1n the process of forming. Though such reports p ersiste d through much o f the cam paign, 1t 1s, In the fin a l a n a ly sis, ra th e r d if f ic u lt to depict th is com er o f the p o litic a l panorama with as much c la r ity as one would wish.** In any case, Randolph, while working with a degree o f optimism fo r Monroe, Indicated In February th a t he would support Clinton 1f necessary to prevent a s p l i t 1n the ranks of the anti-Madison Republi can s.48 One observer In V irginia viewed the Monroe factio n In early February as composed o f several somewhat diverse components: those who p referred his p rin c ip le s , those who d islik ed Madison o r had been disappointed by the re g u la rs, F e d e ra lists, and an offensive-defensive a llia n c e with the C U ntonlans.49 A frien d of Madison also wrote to warn him th a t a Cllnton-Monroe co a litio n tic k e t had been formed ag ain st the reg u lar tic k e t. The respective p o sitio n s reportedly were to be reversed la te r In the campaign, however, putting the V irginia d issid e n t up fo r P resident Instead of the N ew Yorker.58 A n Old ---------jfj------------------- D e M itt Clinton to John Smith, February 20, 1808, John Smith M iscellaneous M anuscripts, New-York H isto rical Society. Benjamin Tallmadge to O liver W olcott, J r . , January 28, 1808, O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Connecticut H isto rical Society. John Nicholas to Wilson Cary N icholas, February 5, 1808, Carter-Smlth Family Papers, Univer s ity o f V irginia. 48 Randolph to Joseph H. Nicholson, February 20, 1808, John Randolph Papers, V irginia S tate L ibrary. Randolph to Joseph Clay, February 15, 1808, John Randolph Papers, U niversity o f V irginia. 49 [John Taylor] to [Wilson Cary Nicholas] February 5, 1808, Edgehl11-Randolph Papers, U niversity o f V irginia. 50Henry Lee to Madison, February 10, 1808, James Madison Papers, Library o f Congress. Dominion F ed eralist said some o f his p arty 1n th a t s ta te , though no c o a litio n had been formed, seemed to favor Monroe.^ A n Irre p re ssib le Monroe congressman also spoke more along the lin e s of support fo r his ch ief as the c o a litio n 's top candidate; he In sisted th a t N ew York d issid en ts were beginning to see th a t they would be unable to e le c t Clinton and had now determined to support Monroe, provided an Empire s ta te man could be named as the v1ce-pres1dent1al conten der. This Monroelte 1n the c ap ital to ld the C11nton1ans th a t the backers o f th e ir ch ief h e a rtily approved such a move and thought th a t D e W itt Clinton would probably be the man. Moreover, he f e l t the F ed eralists could be brought to the Monroe banner simply 52 by the assurance th a t commerce would be p ro tected . But one southern a n a ly st, Nathaniel Macon, noted th a t many appointed as Monroe e le cto rs o r committeemen 1n V irginia had refused to serve and hence thought th a t the faction would e ith e r drop th e ir man o r run him 1n the second spot on a Clinton tic k e t. Thus, 1n February, circumstances seemed to be pointing toward a possible c o a litio n between the C11nton1ans and the Irre g u la r V irginia candidate, though the pecking order of such an arrangement was s t i l l In d e fin ite .53 Action was occurring 1n the Clinton camp as w ell. John 5^Edward Carrington to Timothy P ickering, January 30, 1808, Timothy Pickering Papers, Massachusetts H isto rical Society. 52Edward C. Stanard to Monroe, February 19, 1808, James Monroe Papers, N ew York Public Library. 53Macon to Joseph H. Nicholson, March 1, 9, 1808, Joseph H. Nicholson Papers, Library of Congress. Nicholas, an unfriendly N ew York observer, remarked 1n e a rly February th a t the supporters o f the V ice-President had abandoned th e ir e a r lie r plan to push D e W1tt Clinton 1n view o f his lack of wide spread appeal and were continuing Instead to uphold George Clinton fo r the top office.® 4 A N ew York City commentator who favored Nonroe wrote the Secretary of S ta te about the same time th a t the younger Clinton was, 1n f a c t, working In Albany to secure a le g is la tiv e nomination o f George Clinton fo r President and Monroe fo r Vice- P resident. I f th e ir plans fo r such a tic k e t seemed to make l i t t l e progress, I t was thought they mlqht well turn to a s la te o f Monroe fo r P resident and D e M1tt Clinton fo r the second sp o t, providing th a t the Monroe factio n would go along. In general, th is observer viewed D e W1tt as the more dangerous of the C lintons, castin g George In the ro le o f a p o te n tial victim o f th e v irtu a lly unlim ited ambitions o f his nephew. I t was hoped, however, th a t De W itt's u lte rio r motives would be perceived and th a t h is schemes to use the eld e r Clinton as a stalk in g -h o rse would be rejected . The same rep o rter also mentioned a meeting o f several Important F ed e ra lists, Including Rufus King and O liver W olcott, J r . ; four of these F ed eralist s tr a te g is ts supposedly l e f t fo r Albany on February 11 to form a c o a litio n In support o f George Clinton fo r P resident, though the Madlsonlans hoped any such overtures would be unacceptable to the ® 4John Nicholas to Wilson Cary Nicholas, February 5, 1808, Carter-Smlth Family Papers, U niversity o f V irginia. 110 d issid en t Republicans.55 The N ew York Evening P o st, however, rep re sented one school o f F ed eralist thought—the p u ris t v ariety — which refused to back George Clinton fo r the f i r s t o ffic e . Near mid-March, the Informant was able to report D e W itt C linton's fa ilu re to secure the le g is la tiv e nomination fo r his uncle, though the schemer had been able to get the V ice-President to express public d iss a tisfa c tio n with the congressional caucus nomination. Thus, 1t was feared th at the Empire s ta te le g isla tu re would u l t i mately nominate a Clinton tic k e t.55 Indeed, George Clinton had not acgulesced In the Washington nomination 1n retu rn for the h a lf-lo a f offered by the caucus. He became, In e f fe c t, a candidate with two hats 1n the rin g : while not openly re je c tin g his statu s as Madison's running mate, he con tinued 1n th e p resid en tial sweepstakes as well by Implying he had not n ecessarily agreed to s e ttle fo r the second o ffic e as fu ll pay ment for h is pretensions. P riv ate ly , he denounced the caucus as a "pernicious measure" and an "Offspring o f Qulddlsm" which "has produced a ll the Evil Conseguences th a t might be expected from th a t 111 timed and corruptly managed Measure." The V ice-President disavowed having had anything to do with the congressional nomina tio n and even In sisted th a t by almost mid-February he had not y e t 55[ J . H. Douglass] to James Madison, February 7, 11, 26, March 12, 1808, James Madison Papers, N ew York Public Library. 55New York Evening P ost, February 16, 1808, pp. 2-3; February 26, 1808, p . 3. been asked by any o f the caucus men whether he would run with Madison. In order to play two numbers a t the same time on the p o litic a l wheel, he decided to keep q u iet on th is question as long as p o ssible. In f a c t, he f la tly predicted the advocates o f the Washington nomination would "have d iff ic u ltie s to contend with" 1n th e ir e ffo rts to carry th e ir tic k e t. Clinton also had a good word for Monroe, In s is tin g th a t a m ajority of V irginians favored him over Madison.5? At the beginning o f March, one backer of the V ice-President mentioned le tte r s from the South which sugqested Monroe strength and said I t was thought th a t a nomination 1n N ew York of a Cllnton-Monroe tic k e t would lead to I ts success. A s some Madlsonlans charged, various CUntonlans continued to explore the fe a s ib ility o f arranging a co alitio n between th e ir ch ief and the Irreg u lar candidate from the Old Dominion.88 The degree o f co-operation between the Clinton and Monroe factions by the beginning o f March 1s d if f ic u lt to p inpoint, but 1 t was su ffic ie n t to produce a jo in t p ro te st ag ain st the congres sional nomination. Nathaniel Macon, no lover o f Madison, was Informed o f the anti-caucus plan before the m anifesto was p rin ted . He disapproved both the contents of the p ro te st and the strateg y ^G eorge Clinton to P ierre Van C ortlandt, J r . , February 20, March 10, 1808, Van C ortlandt Papers, N ew York Public Library. George Clinton to De W itt C linton, February 18, 1808, De W itt Clinton Papers, Columbia U niversity. 58N. Tallmadge to P ierre Van C ortlandt, J r . , March 2, 1808, Van C ortlandt Papers, N ew York Public Library. 112 behind 1 t, feelin g th a t any such p resen tatio n could scarcely be u n iv ersally applicable 1n a ll sectio n s o f the nation. In ad d itio n , Macon believed th a t those who opposed the caucus should avoid r e s tric tin g th e ir arguments to any p a rtic u la r te x t o r document. Another d iffic u lty associated with such a manner of opposition a t th is point was the time lapse between the caucus and the p ro te st: the C arolinian f e lt th a t the reb u tta l had been delayed too long to have an appreciable e f f e c t.5* * But the CHnton-Monroe forces refused to accept Macon's judgment, and the anti-caucus m anifesto emanated from Washington on February 27. The signers p rotested the congressional nomination on several grounds. F ir s t, they In sisted th a t Stephen R. Bradley had possessed no au th o rity to call the caucus. Second, the caucus notices were n eith e r properly d istrib u te d nor r e s tr ic te d to the Republican party; the allowance of a te r r ito r ia l d e le g ate's vote also helped In v alid ate the proceedings. Third, the caucus vote was taken without discussion o r prelim inary nomination. Fourth, those who attended the meeting were attem pting to make th e ir decision binding upon a ll Republicans, even those who refused to p a rtic ip a te . F ifth , though the caucus was useful 1n co-ordinating party e ffo rts when the F ed eralists were stro n g , no such reason could be employed In view o f the weakened sta tu s of the opposition p arty . S ix th , the In sisten ce of the caucus p artic ip a n ts th a t they were actin g In th e ir p riv ate cap acities 59Macon to Joseph H. Nicholson, March 1, 3, 1808, Joseph H. Nicholson Papers, Library o f Congress. 113 was fa lse Inasmuch they desired to apply the leverage associated with th e ir p o sitio n . Seventh, such a nomination was h o s tile to the p rin cip les o f the C o n stitu tio n . Eighth, the caucus was a gross assumption o f power n eith e r authorized by the people nor ju s tif ie d by circum stances. N inth, th is mode o f choosing candidates was an attem pt, In e f f e c t, to tra n sfe r the power o f choosing the P resident and Vice-President from the people to Congress, and In trig u e along with corruption would lik e ly sta lk the caucus h a lls . The tenth commandment transgressed by the caucus members—and actu ally the most Important of a l l —was the nomination of Madison.®® The 11st of seventeen signers o f the p ro te st 1s composed o f Clin ton and Monroe men almost exclusively from three o f the most Important s ta te s , N ew York, Pennsylvania, and V irginia, a ll o f which had con sid erab le d issid e n t Republican elements: Joslah M asters, John R ussell, George C linton, J r . , G. S. Mumford, John Thompson, Peter Swart, and John H arris o f N ew York; Joseph Clay, William Hoge, Samuel Smith, Daniel Montgomery, J r . , and Samuel Maclay o f Pennsylvania; Abram Trigg, Edwin Gray, James G arnett, and John Randolph of V irginia; and David R. Williams o f South Carolina. The co-operation Implemented between the Monroe and Clinton factions hinted a t the p o s s ib ility of collaboration approximating a united fro n t against the regular can d id a te , though the fa ilu re o f the p ro te st to o ffe r a sp e c ific riv a l to Madison Indicated the lack o f a concrete agreement a t th is tim e. 60Nat1onal In te lllq e n c e r, March 7, 1808, pp. 2-3. New-York Comnercial A dvertiser, March"?, 1808, pp. 2-3. N ew York Evening P o st, March 1808, p. 2. John Nicholas to Wilson Cary N icholas, February 5, 1808, Carter-Smlth Family Papers, U niversity o f V irginia. 114 Indeed, both d issid en t hopefuls apparently remained In the co n test fo r f i r s t p la c e .6' The anti-caucus m anifesto n a tu ra lly brought anguished c rie s from the elements which favored the system. One a r tic le 1n The Enquirer, fo r example, complained th a t the p ro te st was woefully Inadequate: Instead of tru th and v irtu e , te llin g us o f wrongs which we had suffered and proving them to o , we find ourselves Insulted by an elec- t1 oneerlng squlb—weak and In co n siste n t 1n I ts charges— sh u fflin g and prevaricating In I ts arguments—poor, entangled and crippled In I ts composition. Denouncing some o f the p ro te sters because they had attended p rio r caucus m eetings, the w rite r also refused to accept the Idea, fo r warded by many who opposed the system, th a t congressional nomina tio n s before 1808 had been e sse n tia l but now were wrong; th is method of choosing the contenders was e ith e r proper o r unwarranted, whatever the tim e. The re s t of the a r tic le attempted to re fu te , almost point by p o in t, the remaining objections postulated by the anti-caucus d eclaratio n , In sistin g as well th a t the members o f Congress provided the best and most e f fic ie n t expression of the public on the p resid e n tia l question. A subsequent a r tic le of sim ilar tone asserted th a t the caucus would prevent disputes between s ta te s and th e necessity C O o f ele ctio n s by the House. Nathaniel Macon feared th a t th e p ro te st 6' National In te llig e n c e r, March 7, 1808, pp. 2-3. New-York Commercial A dvertiser, March 9, 1808, pp.2-3. N ew York Evenlnq P ost, M arch'97T808, p .2 . --------- --------- 6^The Enquirer, March 18, 1808, pp. 2-3; March 22, 1808, pp. 2- 3. The issu es o f March 24, 29, and April 1 also contain objections to the m anifesto. 115 would serve to drive many borderline regulars Into fu ll support of Madison as well as some who voted fo r the nominee but had since grown cool toward him. Thus, th e statem ent against the caucus produced considerable reaction which would severely m itig ate I ts Intended e f f e c ts .63 The m ajority V irginia le g is la tiv e nomination having been given to Madison, the various factio n s were highly In terested In which way the Pennsylvania Republicans would go, fo r the s ta te rep re sented su b stan tial Influence as the second la rg e st 1n terms of e le c to ra l votes. Nathaniel Macon observed th a t the "caucus and anti caucus men seem to be very anxious to hear from the democratic s ta te caucus . . . both sid es calc u la te on having 1n th e ir favor a unanimous Pennsylvania v o te," though some thought a s p li t tic k e t 64 would be nominated. The time o f meeting fo r determ ining the Republican p resid en tial e le c to ra l tic k e t had been s e t 1n early January by a gathering o f the p a rty 's le g is la to rs . The group de cided th a t the f i r s t Monday 1n March was the appropriate time and Inaugurated the mixed caucus concept: those countries o r d is tr ic ts not represented In the le g isla tu re by Republicans were asked to choose special delegates to the meeting. Local conventions were called fo r th is purpose and the appropriate rep resen tatio n was arranged. W hen the mixed convention convened a t Lancaster on 63 Macon to Joseph H. Nicholson, March 7, 1808, Joseph H. Nicholson Papers, Library o f Congress. 6*Macon to Nicholson, March 9, 1808, Ibid. 116 March 7, the group nominated Simon Snyder fo r governor by a unani mous vote and chose a tic k e t o f p re sid en tia l e le c to rs with equal harmony. O n March 8, the convention met again to adopt an address, which declared th e ir friendship and th a t o f the elec to rs to the Jefferson ad m in istratio n . The tic k e t, however, was not form ally pledged to any candidate, and a le t t e r from Washington said the question was s t i l l u n settle d , though both sides were claiming a v icto ry . A ctually, the s la te o f e le cto rs was o f the compromise v ariety . But an unbiased observer—1f Indeed th ere was such a c reatu re—would have probably concluded th a t Madison was the man fo r whom most o f the votes would be c a s t. Score another round fo r the Secretary o f S ta te .65 As the campaign progressed and the Clinton and Monroe factions continued 1n opp o sitio n , some Madison Republicans began to question the wisdom o f try in g to c o n c ilia te the New York hopeful with the o ffe r o f second place. Clinton had w ritte n various le tte r s In which he refused to declare his acceptance of the Washington nomination, and one such m issive was p rin ted 1n numerous papers. The publication o f th is m aterial affirm ed his sta tu s as a volun tary resid en t o f the p o litic a l tw ilig h t zone 1n which he apparently hoped to flo a t comfortably between the poles of p resid en tial and v1ce-pres1dent1al nominee w ithout jeopardizing e ith e r. But some 65Aurora, January 11, 1808, p. 2; February 2, 1808, p. 2; March 10, 1808, p. 2; March 18, 1808, p. 2. See also Joseph S. Walton, "Nominating Conventions 1n Pennsylvania," American H istorical Review, II (January, 1897), 275. William H. Cabell to Joseph C. Cabell, March 22, 1808, Cabell Family Papers, U niversity o f V irginia. 117 voices were raised against allowing such a hybrid ex isten ce, urging th a t he accept or re je c t the caucus o ffe r o f the second o ffic e . Various analysts thought he would decline I f forced to take a firm p o sitio n , and one wrote a Madison lieu ten an t suggesting a nomination to replace Clinton with a view of strengthening Madison's chances. The Aurora, a maverick tamed—though not to ta lly housebroken— suggested th a t D e W1tt Clinton should be the new running mate, since h is uncle seemed to display a lack of In te re s t In serving again. The excitement over the Issue a t th is time was In su ffic ie n t to force a c le a r stan d , but the question would occur again la te r 1n the game.66 The F ed eralists were delighted to observe the factionalism d istra c tin g the dominant p arty . One remarked g le efu lly th a t the "Democrats are now I think very f a irly by the e a rs. There are almost as many p a rtie s among them as there are ambitious knaves and th a t 1s not a few." Another urged the Republican groups to fig h t 1t out and " le t confusion be more confused." Joseph Hopklnson In siste d th a t Republican factionalism was such th a t I f the F ed eralists would remain q u iet a b it longer, "the dominant [p arty ] w ill b u rst In to a thousand atoms."67 There were e s se n tia lly two factio n s w ithin the F ed eralist camp; the terms "pragm atists" and "p u rists" seem to be the most e ffe c tiv e lab els fo r these groups. The pragm atist 66Ph1l1p N. Nicholas to Wilson Cary N icholas, March 17, 1808, Wilson Cary Nicholas Papers, Library o f Congress. The Enquirer, March 18, 1808, p. 3. Aurora, March 18, 1808, p. 2. 67Char1es A. Foote to Ebenezer Foote, March 10, 1808; William Root to Ebenezer Foote, March 15, 1808, F e d e ra list L e tte rs , U niversity o f V irginia. Hopklnson to Emily Hopklnson, February 19* 1808, Hopklnson Papers, H isto rical Society of Pennsylvania. 118 element was larg ely r e a lis tic and n o n -th e o retlcal— they were In te rested 1n gaining a measure of power, by compromise I f necessary—whlle the p u rists were In flex ib le In th e ir devotion to F ed eralist p rin cip les and to the prevention of any c o a litio n with Republicans of any v a riety . While some pragmatic F ederalists s t i l l looked favorably upon C linton, others turned toward Monroe. The o th er segment o f the party—the p u ris ts —reacted against the pragm atists by refusing to favor any Republican, In sistin g Instead th a t whomever they supported would have to be from th e ir own ranks. Thus, th e Republicans were not alone 1n th e ir confusion. Indeed, the F ed eralists themselves would lack a C O u n ified policy u n til la te 1n the co n test. But the caucus tic k e t, d espite p ro te s ts , was receiving favorable consideration 1n various areas of th e Republican h in terlan d s, and such news was disquieting not only to the F ed eralists but also to the Monroe and Clinton fo rces. In February, fo r example, Republicans 1n th e Delaware, Kentucky, and Ohio le g isla tu re s had agreed to sup port the Mad1son-C11nton tic k e t w hile a public meeting In Burlington County, New Jersey , passed resolutions favoring the same s la te as wise and necessary. Subsequent nominations o f the Secretary of S tate were effected 1n such sta te s as Tennessee, Rhode Island, N ew Jersey , Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The opposing forces thus faced the unpleasant task of attem pting to stem the 68R1chard Peters to Timothy P ickering, March 15, 1808; William Barton to P ickering, March 19, 1808, Timothy Pickering Papers, M assachusetts H istorical Society. 119 burgeoning support fo r the reg u lar nominees.**9 The only possible chance o f th e d issid en t Republicans lay 1n uniting th e ir fa c tio n s, but cementing and m aintaining such an a llia n c e was not e a s ily accomplished. I t was tru e th at some pre lim inary e ffo rts toward co-operation had been e ffected ; th e fin al step would be more d if f ic u lt to accomplish. For one th in g , some of the Monroe advisors were notably c h illy to a c o a litio n tic k e t of Clinton fo r President and th e ir man fo r V ice-President. Having e a r lie r analyzed Monroe's support as based on an Incongruous combination o f frie n d s, F e d e ra lists, and a loose c o alitio n with the C U ntonlans, John Taylor o f Caroline wrote th a t such an arrange ment would be rid icu lo u s and th a t a m ajority of Monroe's friends 1n V irginia preferred Madison to C lin to n .70 A Madison adherent from the Old Dominion pointed out a problem with such a d issid en t s la te , a d iffic u lty which was no doubt obvious to Monroe and his managers: I f th e Clinton factio n ran th e disappointed diplomat fo r Vice- P resident, the Monroe fans 1n V irginia would be In an awkward p o sitio n . Indeed, In order to succeed, they would have to convince th e ir fellows th a t I t would be p referab le to have Monroe 1n the second o ffic e rath er than to have Madison In the f i r s t , an unenviable ta s k .7^ 09Nat1 onal In te l 11 gencer, March 9, 1808, p. 3; March 11, 1808, p. 3; March 16, 1808, p. 3. The E nquirer, June 14, 1808, p. 3. 70[Taylor] to [Wilson Cary N icholas], February 5, 1808, Edgehl11-Randolph Papers, U niversity of V irginia. Taylor to Monroe, March 20, 1808, James Monroe Papers, Library of Congress. 7*W1ll1am H. Cabell to Wilson Cary N icholas, March 18, 1808, Wilson Cary Nicholas Papers, Library o f Congress. Not a ll Monroe's confidants were vigorously opposed to th is N ew York-V1rg1n1a wedding In which the Old Dominion candidate would occupy the secondary s ta tio n . Though Randolph thought his candidate's chances were Improving as of early March, he had Indicated about mid- February, as already noted, th a t h is support would go to Clinton I f necessary to ensure the unity o f the opposition Republicans; doubtless the degree of his enthusiasm toward such a course depended on his estim ate o f the re la tiv e stren g th o f Clinton and Monroe as drawing cards against Madison. Near the end o f March, Randolph continued to evidence some e ffo rts o f loose co-operation In favor of C linton.^2 Jos1ah M asters, the New York C lintonian, In sisted th a t Monroe was gaining In V irginia but th a t 1t was c lea rly under stood he would be a candidate only fo r the v1ce-pres1dency, leaving Clinton as the top contender ag ain st the r e g u la r s /0 But the Monroe committee o f correspondence 1n V irginia published a l e t t e r 1n The Engulrer assertin g th a t th e ir candidate was more g u a llfle d fo r the White House than C linton; moreover, they f e l t the opposition Republicans 1n New York and Pennsylvania were not committed to Clinton but to Clinton o r Monroe depending on circum stances. ^Randolph to Joseph H. Nicholson, February 20, 1808; Randolph to Nicholson, March 24, 1808, John Randolph Papers, V irginia S tate Library* Randolph to Monroe, March 9, 1808; John Minor to Monroe, March 10, 1808, James Monroe Papers, Library o f Congress. Thomas Truxton to Capt. Tlngey, March 17, 1808, James Madison Papers, Library o f Congress. P h ilip Nicholas to Wilson Cary N icholas, March 17, 1808, Wilson Cary Nicholas Papers, Library of Congress. Nathaniel Macon to , March 26, 1808, Nathaniel Macon Papers, North Carolina Depart ment of Archives and H istory. ^M asters to Edmund C. Genet, March 29, 1808, Edmund C. Genet Papers, Library o f Congress. 121 This and o ther a c tiv ity In favor o f each of the Irre g u la rs, however, Indicated th a t the question o f a c o a litio n tic k e t had not been s e ttle d despite ta lk by some friends o f Monroe th a t Clinton would probably be elected to the f i r s t o ffic e with th e ir man as a lik e ly running mate. While c e rtain opposition Republicans were desperately hoping fo r some s o rt o f sp e c ific nomination o f a tic k e t to represent them ag ain st Madison, I t appears as though many F ed eralists—p o ten tial a l l i e s —In Albany would not consent to co-operate with the CUntonians but rath er were a ctiv ely opposing them. I f the F ed eralists them selves made a nomination, 1t would only be with the hope, one analyst thought, of securing the v1ce-pres1dency.75 Meanwhile, there was s t i l l considerable congressional a c tiv ity regarding the p resid en tial question—o r so, a t le a s t, bemoaned a ra th e r disgusted Nathaniel Macon.76 Along with the awakening of spring seemed to come the s tir r in g o f many F ederalists from th e ir s ta te of re la tiv e p o litic a l somnolence which had resu lted from the c h ill breezes of Republican domination a f t e r 1800. The current o f pragmatism, which would have led a le ss than o p tim istic party Into the support of one of the Republican 7*The Enquirer, March 22, 1808. p. 3. 76Jos1ah Masters to Edmund C. Genet, March 29, 1808, Edmund C. Genet Papers, Library of Congress. John Nicholas to Wilson Cary Nicholas, March 30, 1808, Wilson Cary Nicholas Papers, Library o f Congress. 76Macon to Joseph H. Nicholson, March 29, 1808, Joseph H. Nicholson Papers, Library o f Congress. 122 d issid e n ts, began to give way to a growing s p i r i t o f purism, a mood based on th e hope o f success fo r a F ed eralist p resid en tial candidate. One o f the primary c a ta ly sts 1n th is p o litic a l metamor phosis was the embargo. Voted by Congress a t the end o f 1807, I ts adverse e f fe c ts , e sp ecially In areas heavily Involved In shipping and commerce, were progressively f e l t as elec tio n year unfolded. Though the u ltim ate Im plications o f the economic w arfare against the European b e llig e re n ts were tra n sla te d Into re a lity over a period of several months, some F ed eralists had begun to take pot shots a t the embargo 1n January. The F ed eralist N ew York Evening Post fire d one of the early salvos: Conundrum - W hy 1s the Embargo lik e an old musket? because old muskets so contrive 1 t, As q u ite to miss the mark they aim a t, And though well aim 'd a t duck or plover, Bear wide, and kick th e ir owner over. The same paper followed up with a fav o rite tric k o f embargo oppo nents, th a t o f rearranging the word's le tte r s 1n a s o rt of p artisan scrabble, 1808 s ty le , to form new expressions ra th e r uncomplimentary to the o rig in al term: 0 , grab 'em 0 grab me 0 brag 'em 0 brag m e M e brag 0 M e grab 0 Go bar 'em G o bar me Game, rob Bore, m ag77 ^Evening P o st, January 15, 1808, p. 3; February 9, 1808, p. 3. 123 The Boston Columbian Centlnel was another Federal press which realized the p o te n tia lly explosive e ffe c t the embargo could have 1n aiding the p a rty 's cause. I f Jefferson kept the trad e ban In e ffe c t fo r a su b stan tia l period, "not a democrat w ill ever again be tru s te d with power 1n the United S ta te s." ? 8 Indeed, the embargo was to aid 1n re v ita liz in g the F ed eralist party 1n 1808, as well as providing ammunition fo r some o f the factio u s Republicans. The party of the p o litic a l "outs" thus wasted l i t t l e time In taking advantage o f th is unexpectedly salubrious turn of events. By A p ril, some F ed eralists were highly encouraged with th e ir pros pects and thought V irginia domination of the presidency was nearing I ts end. S tate electio n s In N ew York during th a t month brought forth e sp ecially activ e e ffo rts by the p a rty , and opposition to the embargo was a cen tral theme.?9 One F e d e ra list paper, the N ew York Commercial A d vertiser, waded Into th e fig h t with I ts rh eto rical f is ts fly in g : Republican Shad—A good republican paraded the s tr e e ts yes terd ay , with a wheelbarrow load o f shad, carrying a flag on which was displayed 1n g laring ch aracters "Republican Shad." This fis h may possibly be emblematical of the reigning p o litic s o f the day. The shad 1s a Bony fis h ; democrats love Bony. As th in as a shad 1s an old sim ile. I f the Federal tlclcet should succeed, some fa t o ffic e holders ?8Columb1an C entlnel, January 27, 1808, p. 1. ?9Thomas F1tzs1mons to Timothy Pickering, April 5, 1808; George Cabot to P ickering, April 9, 1808; King to Pickering, April 12, 1808; William Barton to P ickering, July 29, 1808, Timothy Pickering Papers, Massachusetts H isto rical Society. D e W1tt Clinton to George C linton, April 3 , 1808, D e W itt Clinton Papers, Columbia U niversity. N ew York Evening P ost, M ay 2, 1808, p. 2. 124 would soon be reduced to the thinness o f the shad. And i f the embargo 1s kept on a few months longer, we sh all a ll be th in as shad. The same journal followed uo with some b itin g comments about the reported ambulatory d if f ic u ltie s of various Republicans who had quaffed too fre ely from the fountains of a notorious local oub: " I t was observed o f the republican p arty, when la te ly parading the s tr e e ts , th a t notw ithstanding th e ir lig h ts , they could not walk s tra ig h t. W as th is owing to the badness o f the pavement 80 o r the w aters of M arti1ng's g reat Spring. " As a re s u lt of such p artisan excitem ent, gusto, and Incisive s a tir e , the struggle w ithin Federalism between the p u rists and the pragm atists sh ifte d more toward the p u r is ts , though some—notably Rufus King—were not y e t fu lly convinced of dim inishing popular favor toward Republicans. I t was s t i l l too e a rly , however, fo r the reinvigorated party to determine I ts candidates. With the F ed eralists in a sta te of growing resurgence but s t i l l unable to name a candidate and thereby determine whether to take the rig h t fork o f purism or the l e f t o f pragmatism, the sp o tlig h t continued to f a ll on the drama of the discordant Repub lican s. D isliking the Idea th a t Clinton could successfully sp o rt two somewhat In consistent p o litic a l h ats, the regulars In itia te d a concerted attem pt to knock him o ff the fence, hoping e ith e r to force him to accept the second spot on Madison's tic k e t and thus drop from the p resid en tial race or to refuse th e caucus nomination 80 New-York Commercial A dvertiser, April 8 , 1808, p. 3; April 14, 1808, p. 3; Ap'rTI' 16, T808, pp. 2-3; and April 19, 1808, p. 2. and become an open opponent. The committee of correspondence chosen by the caucus met at the end of March and selected four o f th e ir number as a subcommittee to ask Madison and Clinton 1f they would agree to the congressional nomination. The Secretary of S tate re p lie d , of course, th a t he would, but the wily New Yorker refused to accept the delegates as o ffic ia l rep resen tativ es of the caucus and fu rth e r fo ile d th e ir scheme by saying he would serve 1n whatever capacity the people called him; without rejec tin g the nomination fo r the vice-presidency, he had ex p ertly kept the door to the White House wide open. One correspondent 1n Washington remarked th at th e "complaint now seems to be, not th at Mr. Clinton Is too o ld , but th a t he 1s too cunning." This analyst said the deputation had hoped to g et a refu sal to th e ir question so that another candidate, possibly James Sullivan of M assachusetts, could be nominated Instead. Whatever the subcommittee's preference fo r C lin to n 's firm acceptance or re je c tio n , they were disappointed on 81 both counts. Though unsuccessful 1n his e a rly e f fo r ts , De W1tt Clinton continued to believe he could g et h is uncle a p resid en tial nomina tio n 1n N ew York. B y A p ril, he had given up the thought—s t i l l retain ed by some F ed eralists—o f a co a litio n with the opposing 82 p a rty , and counted on Republicans fo r the necessary Impetus. 81 The Enquirer, April 5, 1808, p. 3. Aurora, April 8, 1808, p. 2. N ew York EvenTnq P o st, April 6 , 1808, p. 3. ®^De W1tt Clinton to George C linton, April 3, 1808, D e W1tt Clinton Papers, Columbia U niversity. 126 Noting the younger C lin to n 's p lan s, a confidant o f Madison reported th a t the adm inistration cause was gaining 1n the Empire s ta te ; he w as, however, s t i l l a b it fearfu l th a t F ed eralists would support a 03 Cllnton-Monroe tic k e t. Meanwhile, a defection of about ten caucus p a rtic ip a n ts from Madison fa ile d to m a te ria liz e , as James Sloan of New Jersey was apparently the only one o f the group who had the courage to make a public statem ent for C lin to n .8* During May, the guestlon o f a d e fin ite co alitio n between Clinton and Monroe remained unresolved. John Randolph continued to work fo r Monroe as a p re sid e n tial candidate, and the public In V irginia generally thought o f the co n test 1n terms of a Madlson-Monroe co n fro n tatio n , though the d issid e n t movement 1n the Old Dominion was exoerlenclng rough going a f te r the s ta te le g is la to rs who nominated Madison su b sta n tia lly exceeded the number backing his 85 erstw h ile asso ciate. Clinton seemed to be having his d if f ic u ltie s at home as w e ll, and 1t became more widely recognized th at the F ed eralist p u ris ts —a t le a s t 1n N ew York—would push one of th e ir own party 86 ra th e r than coalesce with the factio u s Republicans. In Pennsylvania, th e current began to move c le a rly against the m inority Republicans: 83 [ J . H . Douglass] to James Madison, April 5, 1808, James Madison Papers, New York Public Library. Nathaniel Macon to Joseph H. Nicholson, April 7, 1808, Joseph H. Nicholson Papers, Library of Congress. James Main to James Madison, A pril 18, 1808, James Madison Papers, Library o f Congress. 85 Randolph to James M . G arnett, M ay 8, 27, 1808, Randolph- G arnett Letterbook, Library of Congress. R. Bates to Frederick Bates, May 4 ,^ 8 0 8 , Bates Papers, Missouri H isto rical Society. [ J . H . Douglass] to James Madison, M ay 7, 8, 1808, James Madison Papers, New York Public Library. the party machinery, having been put together again fo r the service of Madison, operated through the committee of correspondence of the s ta te convention to c a ll a meeting o f party members 1n P h ila delphia to take a stand on the p resid en tial guestlon. As expected, when th is group met 1n May, they passed a resolution supporting the Washington caucus nominations; th is action Indicated the d ire c tio n o f the Republican e le c to ra l s la te , despite e ffo rts on the Clinton side In sistin g the s ta te was s t i l l safe fo r th e ir ch ief. Sim ilar resolutions 1n favor o f the regulars were passed 1n some county meetings la te r In the month. W hen the s ta te committee thus turned fu lly toward Madison, any fa in t hopes fo r Clinton vanished. Though the N ew York American C itizen continued to I n s is t th a t the Pennsylvania e lec to ra l tic k e t favored Clinton and Monroe, the P hila delphia Aurora denied 1t and pointed to the local meetings fo r Madison. But the C11nton1ans refused to throw 1n the tow el, some of the notables reportedly having met on M ay 7 to consider what course to follow . Madison's N ew York In te llig e n c e man continued to urge dropping Clinton from the tic k e t and replacing him with James Sul11 van. There was s t i l l considerable feeling 1n the Emolre s ta te th at Monroe would be C lin to n 's running m a te .^ ^T he Enquirer, M ay 10, 1808, p. 3. Aurora, M ay 4, 1808, p. 2; M ay 5, 1&08, p. 2; M ay 17, 1808, p. 2; June 2, 1808, p. 2; June 4, 1808, p. 2. New-York Commercial A dvertiser, M ay 6, 1808, p . 3; M ay 7, 1808, p. 3. N ew York American C itizen In the N ew York Evening P o st, June 1, 1808, p. 2. Cunningham, The Jeffersonian Republicans, W T -1809. 164-66. ----------------------------- -------------- The most obvious e f fo r t to persuade—o r possibly even to coerce— Monroe Into accepting second place on a Clinton tic k e t and to present such a banner to the public came a t the end of M ay from the N ew York American C itizen . The paper a sse rte d th at Madison was nominated "by su rp rise 1f not by collusion" and th a t the Secretary of S tate would wreck American commerce. Therefore, the paper came out favoring a CUnton-Monroe tic k e t. Another Issu e promulgated a se t o f grandiose electio n p red ic tio n s. In evaluating the orospects 1n each s ta te , the C itizen discussed only th ree tic k e ts : the regular Republicans, the F ed eralists (though as y e t unnamed), and th e CUnton-Monroe s la te . There was not even a mention of the d issid e n t Virginian as a presiden tia l contender. This p artisan estim ate gave Clinton 90 elec to ra l votes, a narrow m ajority, while the F ed eralists were accorded 22 b al lo ts ; Madison was graciously awarded 15; and 48 (1nc1ud1na V irginia) were lis te d as doubtful. I t was hoped th a t the Monroe forces would win 1n the Old Dominion, and 1f they did th e ele cto rs would vote fo r Clinton as P resid en t, Monroe as V ice-President. By lis tin g the F e d e ra lists on th e ir own tic k e t, the C itizen re fle c te d the growing support fo r the p u rists 1n th e p arty as circumstances began to make converts of some pragm atists and to work against the holdouts. This organ of the C11nton1ans evidently assumed, or perhaps wished, th a t the arrangement they desired was a f a i t accompli. I t 1s c le a r , then, th a t some believed th ere was a viable c o alitio n forming a N ew York-V1rg1n1a axis among the Irre g u la r Republicans, one which gave the Empire s ta te pre-eminence. I t 1s unclear, however, whether the Monroe forces agreed to such an alignment, though the 129 evidence, notably the apparent absence o f corroborating Information as well as the V irginia candidate's a ttitu d e throughout the c o n te st, ra th e r convincingly suggests th a t they had made no such commitment, 88 e sp ecially on the p a rt o f Monroe him self. The N ew York Public A dvertiser refused to accept not only the C itiz e n 's estim ate o f the e lecto ral votes but also th e ir portrayal o f the com petitors In the race. The A dvertiser repudiated the Idea of a so lid Cllnton-Monroe tic k e t, In sistin g th a t the V irginian would be the th ird Republican asp iran t seeking the highest p riz e . The paper assumed th a t the F ed eralists would re fra in from nomina tin g th e ir ow n tic k e t—1n e f fe c t, th a t the pragm atists would win the policy stru g g le w ithin the opposition p arty —and th at Clinton would receive th e ir support. The A d v ertiser's prediction u ltim ately proved f a r more accu rate, though 1t missed the mark on the F ed eralists and was too generous to C linton: Madison, 102; C linton, 64; Monroe, 4. The pro-Mad1son forces obviously wished to prevent the two d is se n tie n t factions from uniting against th e ir chief.®® Their p o litic a l hibernation being progressively shaken o ff 1n the face o f the sun rays o f Improving p rospects, the F ederalists began to a ctiv a te themselves 1n M ay and early June. Some party members 1n Washington wrote to leaders 1n the various s ta te s 1n order to take the Federal pulse. One such survey d ire c to r, apparently ® ® A m er1 can C ltlzen In the N ew York Evening P o st, M ay 31, 1808, p. 2; June 1, 1808, p. 2. See also Ammon, "James Monroe and the Election o f 1808 1n V irginia," 47. ® ®Pub11c A dvertiser 1n the N ew York Evening P o st, June 3, 1808, p. 3. 130 a pragm atist, expressed the opinion th a t the party should be able to gain a t le a s t the vice-presidency. To th is end, he asked I f the members would be w illing to support e ith e r Madison or Monroe 1n return fo r promises o f the second o ffice and favoritism toward various Federal p o lic ie s. This notable 1n the cap ital was evidently a pragm atist of the southern v a rie ty , fo r, unlike some 1n th e middle go and northern s ta te s , he made no mention o f coalescing with Clinton. During a v i s i t to P hiladelphia and N ew York 1n May, Harrison Gray O tis seems to have suggested the Idea o f a F ed eralist convention on the p resid e n tia l question to p arty leaders 1n those c i t i e s . Leading the way toward a unified F e d eralist policy and co-ordination among the various segments o f the p arty , a committee of notables In P hiladelphia, Including Charles W . Hare, corresponded with th e ir p artisan brethren 1n Massachusetts to gauge th e ir feelings toward possible nominees fo r President and V ice-President. Unlike th e ir Washington comrade, however, the Pennsylvanians were disposed to favor Clinton 1£ the decision were made to ra lly around th e le a s t obnoxious Republican. Inasmuch as the Massachusetts le g isla tu re was In session and Included numerous F e d e ra lists, the Philadelphia coimrittee f e l t the Bay s ta te should make the I n itia l move. Hare and his associates would abide by the Massachusetts d ecisio n , but they f e l t th a t 1t would be preferable to nominate one of th e ir own because the party would probably f a ll to u n ite firm ly behind C linton. In some s ta te s , In fa c t, supporting any v ariety of Republican might go E. B. Caldwell to William Gaston, June 1, 1808, William Gaston Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. cause the d isin te g ratio n o f the F ed eralist machinery. Pressing his p u ris t b e lie fs on Harrison Gray 0 t1 s, who was a pragm atist, Hare In sisted th a t even a loss by a properly pedigreed candidate o f th e ir own would aid th e ir cause more than a win w ith a mongrel Repub lic a n . He suggested—as did some others In various c irc le s —Charles C. Pinckney, the frequent p o litic a l bridesmaid from South Carolina, as the most logical F ed eralist to carry the party co lo rs. Hare 91 thought they might even be able to carry the day w ith such a man. One p u rist doubtless expressed the b e lie f of many com patriots when he wrote the N ew York Commercial A dvertiser th a t "Each partizan holds up h is fa v o rite as the saver of the country, a t le a s t, 1f not the universe. For m y p a rt I see no difference between . . . C linton, Madison, and Munro [s ic ] . . . . ' can there be such a mighty difference betwixt tweedle dum and tweedle dee. ' "92 Theodore Sedgwick talked with the leaders 1n Philadelphia and wrote to M assachusetts to confirm the urgency of Federal unity and decisiveness. He assumed th a t 1f chances looked good fo r the party th e ir e le c to rs should vote fo r candidates of th e ir own, preferably C. C. Pinckney fo r P resident and Rufus King fo r second place. If, on the o ther hand, a Republican d e fin ite ly would win, should F ed eralists vote fo r e ith e r Clinton or Madison? Sedgwick expressed ^H are to Harrison Gray 0 t1 s, June 2, 1808, Harrison Gray 0t1s Papers, M assachusetts H isto rical Society. Aurora, June 3, 1808, p. 2. Samuel E lio t Morlson, Harrison Gray 0 t1 s, 1765-1848: The Urbane F ed eralist (Boston, 1969). 92Commerc1al A dvertiser, June 3, 1808, p. 3. e s s e n tia lly p u ris t views on th is question but did concede th a t I t might be necessary to support Clinton under certa in circum stances. One problem o f such a compromise o f Federalism was th a t Clinton or, 1n the event of his death, Monroe—whom he expected to run with th e N ew Yorker—would be able to perpetuate Republican ru le ; moreover, he thought Monroe was even worse than Madison, esp ecially since John Randolph, who was le ss than favorable toward the northern commercial In te re s ts , would exercise considerable Influence 1n case the N ew Yorker expired 1n o ffic e . Another d iffic u lty o f th is "h a lf loaf" approach was the Injury 1n the public eye which a compromise of p rin c ip le might well bring. Separation from, ra th er than p artic ip a tio n 1n, the In trig u es o f Republicans was the best course, Sedgwick thought; moreover, runnlnq a d issid en t candidate could well end Federal chances to win the White House 1n 1812. About mid-June, the Massachusetts leader wrote again to urge th a t the party act together. To e ffe c t such concert, there should be an Interchange o f sentim ents among party lead ers, a task which could be admirably f u lf ille d by committees o f correspondence. Indeed, I f such organization had not already been completed—I t had 1n M assachusetts—1t should be done Immediately. H e was even more firm ly convinced by th is time th a t the p u rist approach was th e only sen sib le course to follow . Though he thought many N ew York CUntonlans would be disappointed because o f th e ir expectations fo r Federal assistan ce against Madison, Sedgwick believed th is delusion should be continued as long as possible 1n order to prevent a reco n ciliatio n 133 93 of the Republican factio n s. The M assachusetts F ed eralists were quick to respond to th e ir p o litic a l brethren 1n the Keystone s ta te . In f a c t, w ithin a week of the Philadelphia Inquiry, 300 members of the p arty operated almost as a rudimentary s ta te convention; they chose 20 o f th e ir number to act 1n sele ctin g a committee of correspondence to contact F ed eralists 1n other s ta te s regarding the p resid en tial question. The fin al group, consisting of Christopher Gore, George Cabot, Harrison Gray 0 t1 s, James Lloyd, J r . , and Timothy Bigelow, decided on June 10 to propose a convention o f party members from as many s ta te s as possible to meet 1n N ew York C ity a t the la s t of June or early Ju ly , though 1 t 1s d if f ic u lt to see how a meeting could have been arranged 1n such a short time. Bigelow was soon to go to Vermont to consult with the leaders there about arranging delegates to the gathering, and 0t1s was already 1n Rhode Island on a sim ila r m ission. The Bay s ta te stalw arts gen e ra lly , though 0t1s was a noteworthy exception, favored running a Federal candidate ra th e r than coalescing with C linton, but they preferred to support a N ew York F ed eralist—doubtless thinking of Rufus King—ra th e r than the southern candidate, C. C. Pinckney. I f , however, there appeared to be v irtu a lly no hope, they would probably turn to Clinton with the expectation th a t he would aid commerce and be w illin g to make concessions to the F ed eralists. Word from N ew York a lso seemed to In d icate th a t much of the party there thought In p u ris t term s, d espite some previous feeling along pragmatic 93 Sedgwick to Harrison Gray O tis, June 6 , 18, 1808, Harrison Gray 0t1s Papers, Massachusetts H istorical Society. 134 44 lin e s . One commentator even suggested John Jay as the b est can- 05 d id a te , but such an opinion seems not to have been widespread. In addition to Christopher G ore's correspondence with Rufus King, 0t1s answered the Pennsylvania committee's missive by pro posing the convention decided on by the Massachusetts group. C. W . Hare promptly gathered about a dozen leaders 1n P hiladelphia, who, a f te r discussing the Idea, agreed th a t such a method of consul ta tio n would be a good move; accordingly, th is ad hoc committee appointed Hare, Thomas Fltzslm ons, and th re e others to work to organize the southern wing o f the party and to contact the members In Maryland and Delaware Immediately. But the group suggested th e second Monday 1n August, the 8 th , as the time fo r the N ew York convention; public opinion could be more fu lly understood by then. Delay would also allow a more e ffe c tiv e correspondence with southern F ed eralists. A n August meeting time was more r e a lis tic than e a r lie r proposals, and various sp e c ific dates were l a te r pro je c te d , though the gathering was fin a lly postponed u n til ju s t a f te r mid-month.®® 0 t1 s, as suggested e a r lie r , championed the pragmatic cause w ithin the p arty , w riting Theodore Sedgwick a t some length, for example, 1n an attem pt to promulgate his views. 04 Christopher Gore to Rufus King, June 8, 16, 1808, In C. R. King, Life and Correspondence o f Rufus King, V, 100-2. See also MorisorTTH arrlson Gray O tis, 1765-1848; Yne Urbane F e d e ra list, 258. 9®P. Colt to O liver W olcott, J r . , June 27, 1808, O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Connecticut H isto rical Society. 96 Hare to O tis, June 19, 1808, Harrison Gray 0t1s Papers, M assachusetts H istorical Society. Indicating approval o f ele ctin g a F ed eralist 1f the prospects were favorable, 0t1s went on to s ta te h is pragmatic evaluation o f the situ a tio n . Since th e s ta te of a ffa irs would s t i l l be d istre ssin g whoever won, he thought I t b est, perhaps, th a t the hoped-for tra n sitio n back to F ed e ra list p o licies should begin with a factious Republican as P resident. Expressing a d iffe re n t emphasis from his M assachusetts colleagues, he Indicated th a t supporting Clinton would be th e w isest course. 0t1s thought th a t, 1n such a c o a litio n , th e N ew Yorker might even be Induced to agree upon James Ross of Pennsylvania or some o ther F ed eralist as his running mate as well as to make commitments to some of the p a rty 's p rin c ip le s. W hen problems arose under the new adm inistration, the onus would be on the Republi cans rath er than the F ed eralists. With Clinton 1n the White House to take the brunt of th e blame, 0t1s thought the way would be p re pared fo r a natural succession o f the F ed eralist party 1n 1812. Otis c ite d the New York convention and the expected disagreement of leaders 1n th a t s ta t e , not to mention Sedgwick, with the pragmatic solution o f c o a litio n with Clinton. While the M assachusetts prag m atist f e l t I t would be nice to preserve the p u rity of the p arty , he thought circumstances favored c o a litio n 1n order "to save the country. 1,97 While ta lk o f a Federal1st-Cl1nton1an a llia n c e continued 1n 97 O tis to Sedgwick, June 23, 1808, Theodore Sedgwick Papers, M assachusetts H istorical Society. 136 QO various c ir c le s , the opposition party was moving almost Inexorably toward th e p u ris t view and the consequent nomination of a contender from th e ir own ranks. I llu s tr a tiv e o f th is burgeoning In te n sity and Independence of the F ed e ra lists, some party presses during M ay and June began to take pungent pot shots a t the Republicans. The New-York Commercial A dvertiser te s tif ie d to the resurgence of Federalism 1n New York: The [New York] C itizen o f th is morning 1s very w itty upon the death o f Old Mrs. Federal, (as he terms Federalism ). W e can assure the C itizen th a t she 1s not only I1v1nq, but convalescent; and from present appearances w ill soon be strong enough to carry o ff those vip ers who are gnawing upon the v ita ls o f her c o n s titu tio n . ^ A s is te r paper, the N ew York Evening P ost, co-operated 1n tw ittin g the C itizen fo r declaring the demise of the party: Resusc1tat1on-- I t was erroneously sta te d . . . 1n the American C itizen , th a t Old Mrs. F E D E R A L . . . had died of a galloping consumption. W e are happy to be able to announce to her numerous and respectable re la tiv e s , th a t, a f te r a sh o rt excursion Into th e country, she has returned . . . sound 1n mind, and p erfe c tly resto red 1n h ealth . I t may be proper to add, fo r tne b e n e fit of the present ad m in istratio n , th at she owes her recovery to the e ffe c t produced by Dr. Embargo1s wonder-working Lozenges . . . prepared a t the seat of Government. Seized yesterday afternoon v io len tly with the dry belly-ache, and not expected to survive long, Old Mother D E M O C R A C Y . . . . W e understand she has en tru sted the keeping o f her W IL L to the Great Grand Bashaw with th ree t a i l s . . . . The Will 1s to be opened sh o rtly a fte r her decease a t M arti1ng's P1g Pen, Q Q Wheeler Martin to James Madison, June 28, 1808, James Madison Papers, Library of Congress. The Enquirer, June 14, 1808, p. 2. N ew York Public A dvertiser 1n the N ew York Evening P ost, June 3, 1808, p. 3. gg Commercial A dvertiser, M ay 2, 1808, p. 3. 137 In the presence of a ll French Tories and Iris h R eb e lsJ00 The Commercial A dvertiser 1n June again u tiliz e d anti-embargo sen tim ent In attem pting to fu rth e r the p a rty 's cause: POLITICAL BU LLETIN Death - Commerce, a f te r a succession o f attack s from the palsy o f the embargo, which a t la s t has reached a ll I ts limbs and having been thrown Into convulsions, from th e repeated co n sti pating preparations o f the p o litic a l quacks, under whose care 1 t was placed, has a t length expired, —th is melancholy event 1s owing e n tire ly to the Ignorant and u n sk illfu l t r e a t ment o f I ts physicians, who. 1t is rumored, have long harbored a se c re t enmity against I t . ’Ol Thus, 1n sustaining Federalism, the Commercial A dvertiser and Evening Post boldly threw th e ir own rh eto rical sh a fts a t Republicanism. While the F ed eralist troops were advancing, however, those of Monroe began to s c a tte r with d istre ssin g frequency. By mid-June, 1t seemed c le a r to many th a t he was v irtu a lly out of the p re si dential sweepstakes; some of those named to his e le c to ra l tic k e t 1n the Old Dominion had refused to serve and his committee of correspondence had fa ile d to provide su b stitu te s to complete the s la te . Even a large number o f Monroe adherents confessed that Madison would handily win the s ta te . A n Informant from the West a lso sent a m issive bearing bad tid in g s: Monroe's hopes fo r 102 support 1n th a t section would be disappointed. The Enquirer, representing the regular viewpoint, In siste d th a t the disputant 100Even1ng P o st, M ay 4, 1808, p. 3. ^ Commercial A dvertiser, June 14, 1808, p . 3. 102 John Monroe to James Monroe, June 18, 1808, James Monroe Papers, N ew York Public Library. James M . G arnett to John Randolph, July 3, 1808, Randolph-Gamett Correspondence, U niversity of V irginia. 138 Republicans In the s ta te had larg ely abandoned the co n test. A few o f the d issid en t V irginian's supporters In siste d on keeping the f a ith , however, though th e ir hopes must have been based more on wishful IfV * thinking than on substantive prospects. J Monroe's dwindling chances fo r the f i r s t o ffice doubtless made the p ro ffer of the second place on a co a litio n tic k e t with Clinton seem a b it more a ttra c tiv e to many o f the Insiders In his cause and more p lau sib le to numerous o u tsid ers who favored him. Indeed, I t was widely held 1n some c irc le s ap art from the New York American C itizen th a t the allian ce had been concluded; one frien d even wrote Monroe declaring approval of h is candidacy fo r V ice-President but wishing he were running fo r the top sp o t. Some Clintonian e le c tioneering e ffo rts 1n Ohio also urged a banner which Included the V irginian as the v1ce-pres1dent1al c o n t e n d e r The Enquirer spoke from Richmond to say th at Monroe's friends 1n V irginia would refuse to switch to Clinton despite the enticement o f the second o ffic e . Though th is paper was Madisonian In I ts o rie n ta tio n , 1t seems to have told the tru th about the much discussed c o a litio n : Monroe and the bulk of his colleagues had not given In to the Clintonian p l e a s J 05 103 The Enquirer, June 14, 1808, p. 3. Joseph Bryan to John Randolph (ty p e sc rip t), June 26, 1808, Bruce-Randolph C ollection, V irginia S tate Library. 104 James Bowdoln to Monroe, June 23, 1808, James Monroe Papers, Library o f Congress. Aurora, June 27, 1808, p. 2. 105 The Enquirer, June 14, 1808, p. 3. 139 Indeed, w ith Monroe e sse n tia lly Immobilized as a p resid en tial th re a t, a number o f Important regulars renewed demands e ith e r fo r C linton's acquiescence 1n his nomination fo r the second place by the Washington caucus o r fo r his p o litic a l scalp . The N ew York Public A dvertiser urged th a t I f the Vice-President allowed his candidacy fo r the f i r s t o ffic e to continue, the m ajority Republi cans should consider his reticen ce on the v1ce-pres1dent1al question as tantamount to a "v irtu a l re je c tio n " o f the caucus nomination. I t would then be necessary fo r the regulars to choose another man to f i l l C lin to n 's place. In s h o rt, the paper In siste d th a t Clinton e ith e r g et on o r o ff the Madison bandwagon ra th e r than try to par tic ip a te In the regular parade while holding one of his own. If he refused to comply, the A dvertiser thought John Langdon of N ew Hampshire would be the b est a lte r n a tiv e J 06 The Baltimore American f e l t C linton's Irre g u la r candidacy had proceeded so f a r th a t he had already fo rfe ite d the p a rty 's nomina tio n fo r V ice-President; Madison's adherents should therefore se le c t a new running mate fo r th e ir c h i e f one Madison advisor Indicated th a t the reg u lar ele c to ra l candidates 1n Rhode Islan d , convinced of the N ew Y orker's continued Insurgency, might well vote fo r Langdon fo r V1ce-Pres1dentJ®® Another frien d of the Secretary o f State said th a t I f Clinton continued seeking the p resid en tial c h a ir, meetings ^ P u b l i c A dvertiser 1n the Aurora, June 21, 1808, p. 2. ^ American 1n the Aurora, June 7, 1808, p. 2. ^08Wheeler Martin to Madison, June 28, 1808, James Madison Papers, Library o f Congress. 140 throughout the Empire s ta te would be held to approve Madison's nomination and to declare th e ir readiness to support Langdon for the second sp o t. Should the elder Clinton pub licly decline to run on the caucus tic k e t, any attem pt by his nephew, D e W1tt, to su b stitu te 1AQ fo r him In the reg u lar ro le should be re s is te d . Despite such th re a ts of excommunication from the orthodox p o litic a l congregation, George Clinton and his follow ers were un w illin g to provide the Incense of repentance and lo y alty to the regular nomination fo r the Madisonian a lta r . I f anything, the b a ttle was esca la ted , p a rtic u la rly on the p a rt of the N ew York American C itizen . In a ta c tic calcu lated to draw northern support— but which would In ev itab ly rub concentrated sodium chloride Into the p o litic a l sores o f the dedicated Madlsonlans—E ditor James Cheetham made the Issue a sectional one: the real question was '"w hether o r not a V irginian shall ru le over u s ." ' He also con tinued to c r itic iz e the caucus fo r meeting 1n January Instead of March and fo r voting without discussion o f the p o ten tial candidates. The Enquirer rep lie d to these attacks by defending the Old Dominion's Influence and the caucus.1™ I t was the F ed eralist e ffo rt which re a lly began to move Into higher gear during Ju ly . Harrison Gray O tis attempted to s e ll his pragm atist wares to others In the p arty , while Issuing In v itatio n s 109 [J . H. Douglass] to Madison, June 17, 1808, James Madison Papers, N ew York Public Library. ^ C i t i z e n In The Enquirer, June 28, 1808, p. 3. See also Morgan Lewis to Madison, June 28, 1808, James Madison Papers, Library o f Congress. 141 to the p arty conclave designed to choose th e ir candidates. To John Rutledge, J r . , he wrote th a t the prospects fo r ele ctin g a F ed eralist P resident were less than encouraging, but th a t a winning c o a litio n with the C11nton1ans might well be as p ropitious as the success of a Federal contender. 0t1s believed the New Yorker would be unable to win w ithout support from the opposition p arty , and 1t was th ere fore highly possible th at terms could be arranged with Clinton to provide both a F ed eralist running mate and “pledges for adm inistering the Government upon p rin cip les th a t would discom fit the V irginia Phalanx and break up th e ir deplorable and d isastro u s s y s te m ." ^ But the decision fo r pragmatism or purism could only be made 1n co ncert, so 0 t1 s—as was his duty as a member o f the Massachusetts committee—explained the plan to have Informal delegations of F ed eralists from a ll the s ta te s meet as c o n fid en tia lly as possible 1n or near N ew York City sometime 1n August. H e said the sp ecific date and arrangements fo r the meeting had been l e f t 1n the hands o f th e ir co-ordinate committee 1n P h ilad elp h ia, with w hom they had formed a M assachusetts-Pennsylvania axis which served as a fountain- head o f the F ed eralist th ru s t up from the v irtu a l oblivion of the preceding p resid en tial co n test. 0t1s asked Rutledge to decide upon one o r two delegates 1n consultation with a few frie n d s—o r to desig nate some Carolinians who would be tra v e llin g to o r around N ew York on o th er m atters. I f naming and securing representatives proved ^ [ 0 t 1 s ] to John Rutledge, J r . , Ju ly 3, 1808, John Rutledge, J r . , Papers, Southern H istorical C o llectio n , U niversity o f North C arolina. See also Thomas Fltzslmons to Theodore Sedgwick, July 10, 1808, Theodore Sedgwick Papers, M assachusetts H istorical Society. Im practicable, they should send a l e t t e r with sp e c ific estim ates regarding the support which could be expected 1n South Carolina fo r a F ed eralist candidate o r fo r a Clinton c o a litio n tic k e t. Moreover, the convention would lik e the C arolinians' feelin g on whether the party 1n th e ir s ta te would demand Charles C. Pinckney 1f th e N ew York gathering f e l t e ith e r Rufus King or John M arshall, two o th er p o ten tial Federal candidates, could win more votes. 0t1s went on a t some length to expound the gospel o f pragmatism, re ite ra tin g h is Impression th a t many In flu e n tia l members believed such a compromise would be best even 1f a F ed eralist could win. The reason fo r th is apparently paradoxical s itu a tio n was simple: the ex istin g system could scarcely be re c tifie d Immediately, but a F ed eralist would lik e ly be expected to do so, thus providing a rich fie ld fo r the seeds of disappointment when the governmental o rien tatio n was not ra d ic a lly a lte re d overnight. But a d issid en t Republican P resident could begin to reform the system to coincide with Federal w ishes, while a t the same time bearing the respon s ib ility fo r whatever d if f ic u ltie s might a ris e . Rutledge was also asked to work to prepare the party a t larg e to accept the decision of the N ew York convention; whatever th e ir course, the re v ita liz e d party could succeed only I f e ffe c tiv e p artisan d isc ip lin e could be Invoked. Various In v itatio n s of th is type were doubtless sent to the leaders In the respective s ta te s , though each m issive must have re fle c te d the opinions of the respective committee members 143 who wrote them. A ctually, th e mind o f Rutledge proved to be unreceptlve to the pragmatism o f h is northern colleague. I f his own p red isp o sitio n toward Pinckney were In su ffic ie n t, le tte rs from o th er p arty notables ex to lled the p u ris t approach as well as the C arolinian as the p re ferred candidate. Robert Beverley o f V irginia wrote Rutledge on the same day as 0t1s but expressed a d is tin c tly d iffe re n t viewpoint, one which deprecated Madison, Monroe, and C linton, In th a t o rder, as p o ten tial c o a litio n objects fo r the F ed eralists. Firmly p referrin g Pinckney, Beverley wanted the so u th ern er's prospects to receive prime consideration a t the F ed eralist gathering 1n N ew York, which he had ju s t been Informed—presumably from P h ila d e lp h ia - 113 was scheduled fo r August 10. Indeed, p u ris t thinking was becoming the dominant theme of much of the sig n ific a n t correspondence among lead ers, and O tis' cause seemed progressively to weaken as the meeting drew nearer. Theodore Sedgwick continued to enunciate his Impassioned plea fo r 112 [0 t1 s] to Rutledge, July 3, 1808, John Rutledge, J r . , Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. A ctually, the Boston committee recommended August 8, to th e ir Philadelphia colleagues as the best date fo r the meeting. Corresponding com nlttees fo r the party were also formed 1n s ta te s o ther than M assachusetts and Pennsylvania, notably 1n N ew York, Maryland, South C arolina, Vermont, N ew Hampshire and Rhode Island. N ew York became a major p artn er with the Pennsylvanla-M assachusetts combine and was Instrum ental 1n keeping close contact with Federal leaders In Connecticut and N ew Jersey. The Philadelphia group served as a s o rt o f regional headquarters as did the committee In Boston. 113 Beverly to Rutledge, July 3, 1808, John Rutledge, J r . , Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. 144 Federal purism and ag ain st c o a litio n with Clinton: I take 1t fo r granted th a t with whatever horror th e electio n o f Madison may be viewed 1 t cannot 1n the view of co rrect and manly minds be put In competition with the an n ih ilatio n o f the federal party which cannot f a ll to be the e ffe c t of meanly devoting themselves to the man [C linton] who has fo r the whole time they ex isted as a party tre ated them w ith con tempt and done every thing 1n his power to render them odious and d ete sta b le to the populace; and who has done more and more m alignantly than any other man to destroy the v ita l p rin c ip les o f our system. A fter giving support to such a man with what confidence can we make pretensions to the p u rity o f motive o r consistency o f c o n d u c t? !14 Thomas Fltzslmons expected the convention to decide ag ain st forming a c o a litio n because such a course would, he f e l t , merely perpetuate 115 the present system. Abraham Van Vechten also wrote 0t1s th a t N ew York F ed eralists were ag ain st supporting any Republican; Charles W . Hare was e s se n tia lly a p u ris t as w ell, but he did admit th at the question should w ait u n til the convention fo r decision and hence opposed Impassioned rh e to ric by e ith e r pragm atist or p u ris t. But some of the party besides O tis, notably Pickering and James H lllhouse, thought th a t co-operation with the CUntonlans provided the best chance to reach toward Implementing some of th e ir own g o a l s . ^ Various F e d e ra list newspapers 1n Baltimore an> aw York also c a st th e ir e d ito ria l weight Into the p u ris t sc ale. The New-York ^S ed g w ick to O liver W olcott, J r . , July 15, 1808, O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Connecticut H istorical Society. 115 Fltzslmons to Sedgwick, July 10, 1808, Theodore Sedgwick Papers, M assachusetts H isto rical Society. ^®Hare to O tis, Ju ly 12, 1808; Van Vechten to 0 t1 s, July 21, 1808, Harrison Gray O tis Papers, Massachusetts H isto rical Society. 145 Commercial A d v ertiser, fo r example, 1n noting the Republican In tra party stru g g le , said they thought good F ed eralists could support n eith er o f the prominent hopefuls o f the dominant p arty . The same paper p rin ted an a r tic le which favored abstaining from p a rtic ip a tio n 1n the Republican p o litic a l f is tic u f f s for th e presidency, urging Instead the p u ris t goal of a F ed eralist v icto ry . Another Issue denounced the laggards: "They who Inactive themselves discourage and palsy the exertions o f o th ers, are unworthy of the name of f e d e r a lis ts ." ^ T h e Baltimore Federal Republican crowed th a t "Democracy, a f te r a short but destru ctiv e reig n , 1s re tirin g from the usurped sea t o f power, dishonored and disgraced. Federalism 118 1s on the ascendant . . . . The dawn 1s too brig h t to be m istaken." Such a ttitu d e s appropriately I llu s tr a te the tid e o f p u rist opinion which threatened to Inundate 0t1s and others who favored c o a litio n . But, even 1f the party agreed to back one o f th e ir own, a ll was not autom atically s e ttle d w ithin th e ir ranks: Bushrod Washington ex pressed his concern th a t the northern and southern wings agree and suggested th a t he and O liver Wolcott survey F ed eralist opinions 1n 119 th e ir respective sections with a view toward bringing harmony. At le a st one F e d e ra list attempted to bridge th e gap between the p u rists and th e pragm atists by suggesting a compromise tic k e t of C. C. ^C om m ercial A dvertiser, Ju ly 7, 1808, p. 2; July 9 , 1808, p. 3; Ju ly 23, 1808, p. 2.------ 118 Federal Republican In the Commercial A dvertiser, July 9, 1808, p . T . 119 Washington to W olcott, July 28, 1808, O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Connecticut H isto rical Society. See also James Kent to Moss Kent, July 7, 1808, James Kent Papers, Library of Congress. 146 120 Pinckney and George C linton, 1n th a t order. There was, 1n f a c t, a considerable network o f correspondents which had been b u ilt to pass th e word of the meeting along to the appropriate In dividuals. The convention Idea received favorable consideration by most party sta lw a rts , though James A. Bayard of Delaware wrote the Philadelphia committee In an unsuccessful attem pt to squelch the p ro je c t. G enerally, the organization 1n the various sections was ra th e r good 1n view of th e ad hoc nature of the co o rdinating agencies. Maryland, fo r example, called a s ta te con vention o f F ed eralists to consider th e propriety o f the N ew York convocation; the convention was approved and delegates were appointed. There was, however, ta lk o f some a lte ra tio n o f the sta te s which were to be represented. In view o f the d istan ce , various promoters decided th a t 1t would be p racticab le to have delegates only from those s ta te s north o f V irginia, though South Carolina was u ltim ately represented d espite her lo catio n . Prospects fo r good attendance appeared to grow b rig h ter as the various corresponding committees, led by those from Boston, P h ilad elp h ia, and N ew York, disseminated 121 th e word o f th e confidential conclave. 120 William Barton to Timothy P ickering, Timothy Pickering Papers, Ju ly 29, 1808, Massachusetts H istorical Society. 121 C ircu lar from Baltimore F e d e ra lists, July 26, 1808, John Cropper Papers, V irginia H istorical Society. Robert Goodloe Harper to John H. Thomas (p rin te d ), Ju ly , 1808, Harper-Pennlngton Papers, Maryland H istorical Society. Charles W . Hare to Harrison Gray O tis, July 12, 1808; Egbert Benson to O tis, July 13, 1808, Harrison Gray 0t1s Papers, M assachusetts H isto rical Society. 147 July and August w itnessed the progressive decline o f the pros pects o f both George C linton and James Nonroe. For h is p a rt, Nonroe denied charges from the Nadlson camp th a t he was rath er closely aligned with both the F e d e ra lists and the m inority Republicans and In siste d th a t he stood as a p resid e n tia l candidate aloof from a ll p a rtie s . While s t i l l te c h n ic a lly In th e race, Nonroe was beginning to g et a t le a s t a glimpse o f the handwriting on the wall Indicating he was about to be weighed In the e le c to ra l balance and found wanting. Accordingly, he l e f t many campaign decisions to his frie n d s, who were themselves less than dynamically animated 1n h is b e h a lf J 22 By the end o f August, John Randolph, who had been 1n the vanguard o f the Nonroe movement, was disgusted with the feeble e ffo rts of his candidate's frie n d s, and he conceded th a t Mad1son's electio n looked certain . Despite some continued e ffo rts 1n behalf of a N ew York-V1rg1n1a ax is composed o f the d issid en t Republican contenders, no substantive agreement arranging a p o sitiv e c o a litio n seems to have been reached. Some o f th e evidence, however, suggests a s o rt of "united though divided" a ttitu d e between the two factio n s 1n which common opposition to Nadlson was the bond, but the courtship o f the Monroeltes by th e CUntonlans produced only p o litic a l f l i r ta tio n , not m arrlag eJ23 ^22Nonroe to -------, July 20, 1808, 1n B ulletin o f the N ew York Public L ibrary, V (1901), 375-76. ^R an d o lp h to Joseph H. Nicholson, August 22, 1808, Joseph H. Nicholson Papers, Library o f Congress. Randolph to James N. G arnett, August 31, 1808, Randolph-Gamett Letterbook, Library o f Congress. A n example o f the courting done by the CUntonlans as well as the common opposition s p ir i t can be seen 1n a pro-C11nton pamphlet which 148 C lin to n 's prospects a t th is season seemed only s lig h tly b e tte r , though h is friends were ju s t a b it more activ e than Monroe's. Some Republicans, apparently oblivious th a t the cu rren t 1n F e d e ra list ranks was moving toward the p u rist course, s t i l l expected the opposition party to back the N ew York d issid e n t, while o th er reports spoke o f the general discouragement of many of C lin to n 's adherents, even 1n N ew Y orkJ24 The obvious growth o f Madison strength and the concomitant atrophy o f the V ice-P resident's ranks produced a bandwagon e ffe c t In favor o f the reg u lar nominee. Various supporters of C linton, Including the Democratic Press of P hiladelphia, f e l t the p artisan wind blowing on the dry sid e of th e ir upraised te s t fin g e r and scu rried to allow th e ir p o litic a l weathercock to re fle c t the 125 Increased In ten sity of the readings on the Madisonian anemograph. One Republican observer wrote D e W itt Clinton In late July to rep o rt th a t numerous people 1n western N ew York preferred his appeared during spring o r summer o f e lectio n year. E n titled A n Address to the People of th e American S tates .. .. . the worF” speaks against Madison and 4n favor o f the V ice-President. I t also referred to Monroe w ith favorable comments and v io len tly denounced the congressional nomination, Including the use o f an e x tra c t from the m anifesto prepared jo in tly 1n February by the united e ffo rt o f various Clinton and Monroe supporters. 124 Henry Dearborn to A lbert G a lla tin , August 29, 1808, A lbert G allatin Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. Ezeklal Bacon to Joseph Story* August 22, 1808, Joseph Story Papers, Library of Congress. The Enquirer. Ju ly 7, 1808, p. 2. Democratic Press (Philadelphia) in the National In te llig e n c e r, July 25, 1808, p. 3. 125 Democratic Press 1n the National In te llig e n c e r, July 25, 1808, p. T . 149 uncle 1f there were a chance fo r success 1n winning a m ajority In th e ir p arty . But most o f these were going to support Madison "on account o f his having been nominated 1n the ordinary way, and from fear o f a fa ta l division o f the republican p arty ," hoping Instead th a t "some amicable compromise could be effected between 126 the republicans o f the northern and southern sectio n s of the union." ° This movement toward Madison, with approval of the caucus as the "ordinary way" fo r p resid e n tia l candidates to be nominated, was reflec te d 1n a number of public meetings which passed resolutions favoring both the regular nominee and th e mode of his se le c tio n . Various gatherings 1n N ew York City during July were In d icativ e of the tenor o f most Republicans 1n th is regard, and numerous local convocations 1n Pennsylvania during the summer expressed sim ilar opinions. With th e Monroe movement v irtu a lly moribund 1n V irginia and the Clinton phalanxes rap id ly d isin teg ratin g 1n N ew York and Pennsylvania, the chances of v icto ry —o r even stopping Madison— 127 by e ith e r o f the factio n al Republicans became v irtu a lly non-existent. Along with the apostasy o f the d issid en t troops and the exodus to the Madison banner came more disquieting sounds regarding the wisdom o f retain in g Clinton as the regular v1ce-pres1dent1a1 nominee; th is v ariatio n on a theme became a cacophony of p ro te st ^® P eter B. P orter to D e W itt C linton, July 27, 1808, D e W1tt Clinton Papers, Columbia U niversity. 127 James Main to Madison, July 13, 1808, James Madison Papers, Library o f Congress. The E nquirer, July 12, 1808, p . 2; August 12, 1804, p. 4. National In te llig e n c e r, Ju ly 25, 1808, pp. 2-3; August 24, 1808, p. T . Aurora, August 31, 1808, p. 2. 150 which would reach I ts zenith 1n the f a l l. A Republican county meeting 1n N ew Jersey In August, fo r example, passed reso lu tio n s approving the caucus sele ctio n "1n case the said Clinton honorably 128 acquiesces 1n the said nomination." This echoed a l e t t e r from South Carolina which reported th at The only weight which Mr. C linton's name now c a rrie s . . . h ere, even as a candidate fo r the vice presidency, 1s derived from the much decried caucus a t Washington . . . so much d iss a tisfa c tio n 1s f e l t , th a t 1f any attem pts were made ag ain st him, and a su ita b le candidate offered 1n his . . . stea d , he would In fa llib ly lose the votes of th is s ta te . y One local meeting 1n N ew York on July 30 even nominated Langdon on Madison's t i c k e t V a r i o u s regular elements thus chafed a t the fa ilu re o f the Madlsonlans* strateg y e ith e r to m ollify the Cl1n- tonlans with the sop o f the second spot or to force him Into overt opposition to the Secretary o f S tate. There was growing sentim ent to purge the N ew Yorker unless he came Into lin e . The F ed eralists were fin a lly to choose during August between the p u ris t and pragm atist viewpoints. Both the p u ris ts and the pragm atists continued th e ir "campaigning" 1n the Immediate p re convention period. For Instance, Harrison Gray 0t1s wrote various m issives, Including one to Albany designed to convince the F ed eralists 1n the s ta te le g is la tu re th a t Clinton should be the p a rty 's candi date; hopefully, then, the N ew York delegates at the meeting ^ A u r o r a , August 31, 1808, p. 2. ^ ^The E nquirer, July 22, 1808, p. 2. ^®New York Evening P o st, August 12, 1808, p. 2. 151 would support th a t view. But the Empire s ta te F ed eralists had tangled many times In mortal p o litic a l combat with the Vice- President and hence, despite persuasive arguments by 0 t1 s, were unwilling to be e a sily cajoled Into backing th e ir old enemy: th e ir representatives to the convention were In stru cted to nominate men o f th e ir own party provided there was any hope o f success. Failure with N ew York F ed eralists was a harbinger of the fate o f the pragmatic vlewoolnt a t the forthcoming gathering o f party n o t a b l e s .^ The p u ris t group was also 1n the f ie ld . One openly denounced C linton, saying th a t 1f the schism atic Republicans re a lly deprecated Jeffersonian p o licy , they should quash 1t by a potent application o f federalism . . . . At any ra te , even I f Clinton should become P resident, we n eith er have, nor can have any pledge o f the propriety o f his conduct. I f , making him P resident, the fe d e ra lis ts should afterw ards be obliged to oppose him the Ridicule they would not less deserve than receive . . . . W e must keep our Party to g eth er—W e must run our own men . . . . Besides we have much reason to hope th a t our candidates, 1f we support them l u s t i l y , may succeed . . . . our p arty throughout the Union Is receiving a tone from which I am Induced to hope and expect the Complete trlumph o f the good old cause. In sh o rt, the F ed eralists must win on th e ir own and avoid the reproach 13? of a s sistin g In th e electio n of a Republican. 131 Daniel Hale to Ebenezer Foote, August 10, 1808, F ed eralist L e tte rs, U niversity of V irginia. John C. [Troup?] to O liver W olcott, J r . , August 10, 1808, O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Connecticut His to ric a l Society. 132 Barent G ardlnler to Ebenezer Foote, August 8, 1808, F ed eralist L e tte rs , U niversity o f V irginia. Some were le ss d o ctrin aire 1n th e ir approach to the question than e ith e r o f the extreme views. Robert Goodloe Harper preferred a p u ris t view but f e l t th a t 1f the Pennsylvania gubernatorial e le c tio n —held before the p resid en tial vote—went against them, th e ir chances to win the White House were w orthless. In th a t event, they should choose between the Republicans, "a hard and d if f ic u lt choice, no doubt, but I t must be made from among the e v ils [and] I am c le a rly o f the opinion th a t there 1s a 'l e a s t . ' Here [Maryland] our choice would f a ll on Monroe." I f the d issid en t Virginian were out of the question, Clinton would be preferab le to Madison, and Harper believed the F ed eralists could carry the N ew Yorker to v icto ry . Such a win would be a blow to national domi nation by the Old Dominion and to the Republican party as w ell. But he noted th a t F ed eralists 1n a number of s ta te s preferred 133 to run th e ir own man. Though favoring Clinton over Monroe, George Cabot of Massachusetts was another who f e l t much as Harper; while wishing to run a F e d e ra list, he was s u ffic ie n tly r e a lis tic to believe the best chance fo r success might well be 1n coalescing 134 with one of the Irre g u la r Republicans. The crux of the question for many lay In the In te rp re ta tio n of the p o litic a l scene and the ap p licatio n o f th e ir conclusions to F ed eralist prospects; 133 Harper to O liver W olcott, J r . , August 2, 1808, O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Connecticut H isto rical Society. 134 Cabot to John Rutledge, J r . , August 15, 1808, John Rutledge, J r . , Papers, Southern H istorical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. 153 I t was on th is point th at the g re a te st disagreement took place. The d o c trin a ire p u rists wished to keep the party free from any form o f Republican c o a litio n , whatever the case, while the dog matic pragm atists thought elec tin g an Irre g u la r would be b e tte r 1n 1808 than 1n winning w ith a F e d e ra list. A large number, how ever, stood between these poles: though hoping to e le c t th e ir ow n man, they were w illin g to support a factio u s Republican If necessary. Thus, some of these became moderate p u rists and others moderate pragm atists, depending on th e ir evaluation of the electio n p o s s ib ilitie s . Whatever th e ir course, the party hoped to c a p ita liz e on such things as the Increasing unhappiness toward the embargo. One malcontent wrote President Je ffe rso n , addressing him as "you Infernal v illa in " : H ow much longer are you going to keep th is damned Embargo on to starve us poor people . . . . I c e rtain ly must and w ill take to highway robbing . . . ra th e r than see the re st o f m y children starve [ . ] I 'l l be damn'd 1f I d o n 't do the same [ ,] I 'l l commltt murder fo r the sake of money. I can get nothing by begging.>35 I t was Indignation and d istre ss o f th is v arie ty which, among other th in g s, gave some F ed eralists considerable hope o f e lectin g a 136 P resid en t, and some Republicans realized th is to be the case. A s th e Boston Repertory noted, the party could oppose Republicans 135 John L. Jones to Je ffe rso n , August 8, 1808, Thomas Jefferso n Papers, Missouri H isto rical Society. 136 Morgan Lewis to James Madison, September 7, 1808, James Madison Papers, Library o f Congress. 154 137 by using an an ti-V irg in ia , pro-commerce approach. The lack both o f precedents and o f experience In arranging an embryonic party convention, plus the general tran sp o rtatio n and communication problem of early nineteenth-century America, doubtless contributed to the several changes 1n the suggested date of the F ed eralist meeting as the proposal was refin ed , defined, and transm itted through the various cen tral correspondence committees: f i r s t la te June o r early Ju ly , then August 8 , followed by August 10, and f in a lly August 15 or 16. A ctually, there appears to have been no uniform ity o f opinion concerning th e exact d a te , but there was a common understanding th a t the p a rtic ip a n ts would convene during the th ird week of the month; most seem to have thought the meeting was scheduled fo r e ith e r the 15th o r 16th. Though the gathering may have been delayed even la te r In th at same week, 1t 1s possible th a t the delegates did convene on Tuesday. The meeting was to be s e c re t 1n I ts proceedings and r e s u lts ; 1n fa c t, every attem pt was made to keep the e n tire m atter q u ie t. The sub rosa nature o f these a c tiv itie s works against the h isto ria n by reducing the evidence from which to pinpoint the sp e c ific delegates In attendance as well as the course o f the d e lib e ra tio n s. The available sources Indicate the convention was attended by 25-30 delegates from e ig h t s ta te s : M assachusetts, N ew Hampshire, Connec tic u t, Vermont, N ew York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and South 1 ^7 IJ' Repertory In The Enquirer, August 13, 1808, p. 3. Carolina. The representation demonstrates the absence o f uniform understanding about the convocation: some, as previously noted, had understood th a t only the s ta te s north o f V irginia were to attend and th a t one o r two delegates were to speak fo r each s ta te . I t 1s Impossible to Id en tify a ll the p a rtic ip a n ts , but several appear to be c e rta in : Harrison Gray 0 t1 s, Christopher Gore, and James Lloyd of M assachusetts; Robert Goodloe Harper of Maryland, d espite his previous d eclin atio n because o f a court engagement; the lone southerner, John Rutledge, J r . , o f South C arolina, the only s ta te 1n the South which had an In te rs ta te corresponding committee; Charles W . Hare and Thomas Fltzslmons o f Pennsylvania; and Joslah Dunham o f Vermont. Some who might have attended, Including several d e fin ite ly appointed as deleg ates, were Stephen Van R ensselaer, Jacob Van Rensselaer, Jonas P la tt, Egbert Benson, Abraham Van Vechten, and O liver WOlcott, J r . , o f N ew York; Richard Frlsby 138 o f Maryland; and David Daggett o f Connecticut. The group o f F ed eralist notables seems to have consulted together on several days during th a t th ird week In August. Despite the eloquent appeals o f O tis, the ch ie f pragm atist a t the m eeting, the p u rists carried the day: the party leaders decided to re fra in from supporting any Republican, and hence Clinton was not to be 138 John [Tunkle?] to John Cropper, August 22, 1808, John Cropper Papers, V irginia H isto rical Society. John C. [Troup?] to O liver W olcott, J r . , August 10, 1808; Harper to W olcott, August 2, 1808, O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Connecticut H isto rical Society. Robert Beverley to John C. Rutledge, J r . , July 3, 1808, John Rutledge, J r . , Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North C arolina. George Cabot to Timothy Pickering, August 10, 1808, 1n jj|^ry Cabot Lodge, Life and L etters of George Cabot (Boston, 1878), 156 th e ir man. The pragmatic view th a t a F ed eralist contender had no chance and th a t the p arty should turn to the le a s t of e v ils fa ile d to Impress the d eleg ates, who turned to the s e p a ra tis t viewpoint of "holding ourselves p erfectly d is tin c t, to nominate Federal C haracters." Though unrepresented a t the meeting, the N ew Jersey and Delaware leaders had also reportedly declared In favor o f such a course. Once th is determ ination had been made, the convention reached I ts second major decision with v irtu a l unanimity: Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina was to be run fo r President and Rufus King of N ew York fo r V ice-President. Timothy Pickering la te r asserted th a t the decision was abetted by the apparent w illingness o f most Empire s ta te Republicans to u n ite behind Madison, thereby reducing the chances o f carrying Clinton to near the zero end o f the scale. The South Carolina F ed eralists were encouraged to communicate the m eeting's ed icts to th e ir comrades 1n Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and North C arolina. Thus was the Federal tic k e t s e t 1n motion, though not publicly a t the moment.^® 130 Abraham Van Vechten to Ebenezer Foote, August 25, 1808; Daniel Hale to Foote, August 10, 1808, F ed eralist L e tte rs, U niversity of V irginia. Pickering to K1111an K. Van Rensselaer, September 26, 1808, Timothy Pickering Papers, Massachusetts H istorical Society. N ew York Public A dvertiser 1n the Aurora, August 31, 1808, p. 2. Jacob R ad cllff e t aT. to The F ed eralist Corresponding Committee of C harleston, September, 1808, 1n Samuel EH ot Morlson, The Life and L etters of Harrison Gray O tis, F ed e ra list, 1765-1848 (2 v o ls ., Boston and N ew York, 1913), I , 314-15. See also Mori son's a r tic le on th is meeting, "The F irs t National Nominating Convention, 1808," American H isto rical Review, XVII (Ju ly , 1912), 744-65; David Hackett F ischer, The Revolution o f American Conservatism: The F ed e ra list Party In the Era o f Jeffersonian Democracy (New York, T9BT)',"W-87. -------------- -------------------------------------- 157 The d esire fo r secrecy about th is convention was disappointed, a t le a s t p a r tia lly . The N ew York Public A dvertiser to ld of the meeting, as did the Aurora o f Philadelphia. The Aurora report was Inaccurate, however, fo r 1t state d th a t a Cl1nton-P1nckney tic k e t had been nominated and In siste d th a t the F ed eralists were refrain in g from announcing the c o a litio n fo r fe a r Clinton would repudiate 1 t J 40 Some Republican observers wrote Madison with equally Incorrect s to rie s about the conclave: one said Pinckney and Caleb Strong of Massachusetts were named as candidates, while another described the actual tic k e t 1n reverse order, King and Pinckney, and In- 141 sls te d th a t Clinton had been activ ely seeking Federal a id . As word o f the nomination of Pinckney and King began to f i l t e r down to F ed eralist leaders 1n the h in terlan d s, th e response from those Informed was generally favorable, and some were con siderably o p tim istic . Though not so e b u llie n t as various of his colleagues, John Marshall nevertheless hoped Pinckney would a ttr a c t 142 enough Republican support to win his own s ta te . The p resid en tial nominee him self was pleased but took a sta rk ly r e a lis tic view o f his prospects, an outlook shared by 0t1s and his pragm atist fellow s: the Carolinian thought his chances o f winning were minimal. Unlike 140 Public A dvertiser 1n the National In te llig e n c e r, August 29, 1808, p. T . Aurora, August 31, 18d8, p. 2. 141 John Graham to Madison, August 29, 1807; Morgan Lewis to Madison, September 7, 1808, James Madison Papers, Library of Congress. 142 John Marshall to Pinckney (photocopy), September 21, 1808, Pinckney Family Papers, South Carolina H istorical Society. 158 the pragm atists, however, Pinckney believed the p u ris t course was rig h t "1n order to shew th a t federalism 1s not e x tin c t, and th a t there 1s In the Union a formidable party o f the old Washingtonian school." C oalition with th e Republicans would have been needlessly damaging. Pinckney also pledged th a t the party 1n his area would abide by the decision to keep the tic k e t from the press fo r some weeks. Of course, not a ll accepted the convention's decision with equanimity. In addition to 0 t1 s, Theophllus Parsons had gorged him s e lf on too much pragm atist doctrine to give 1n e a s ily , and he spent some time In Hartford seeking converts to h is views, Irresp ec tiv e of the p a rty 's decision to trav erse th e p u rist route. Indeed, d esp ite the generally c r itic a l and frequently Inaccurate comments o f various Republican papers, v irtu a lly no public mention was made by the F ed e ra lists of the sub rosa convention's nominations fo r some tim e. In stead , th e party press concentrated on attacking the adm inistration forces and re-emphas1zed the n ecessity of hewing to the p u ris t point of view, thereby providing advance reinforcem ent fo r the time when th e tic k e t would be brought forward. Hoping to ra lly the laggards as well as the f a ith f u l, the N ew York Evening Post In sisted th at There should be no lim its to the hopes of the F ederalists In any p a rt of th e Union. Nothing can be so pernicious to our cause, as to say a f te r the manner o f many clev er milk and w ater p o litic ia n s , ' W e cannot carry 1t and th erefo re I t Is 1n vain to TRY' Let a ll p itifu l discouraging expressions of JP1nckney to John Rutledge, J r . , September 8 , 1808; Archibald Henderson to Rutledge, September 9 , 1808, John Rutledge, J r . , Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North C arolina. 159 th is s o rt be discontinued every where. F ed eralists! you know not what you can do u n til you try . The Post sought to give substance to th is c a ll to arms by e s t i mating th a t the party would win with a F ed eralist candidate by 97 electo ral votes to 79. Another Issue tw itted the Republicans fo r fa llin g to purge George Clinton from the Madison tic k e t 1n view o f the N ew Y orker's continuation 1n the p resid en tial race. A nti-V irginia, anti-caucus sentim ent was also u tiliz e d 1n the anti-Republican campaign, as Illu s tra te d 1n the P o st's Injunction against "Another V irginia P resident, not l e f t to be chosen by the people, but forced upon th e ir choice by a midnight caucus a t Washington." The paper showed Its d esire to s t i r discord among Republicans by publishing an a r tic le d irected sp e c ific a lly to them urging the m ajority party to support Clinton over Madison. As electio n time approached, 1t was obviously essen tial to make a p u b lic—and a t le a s t se m i-o ffic ia l—announcement of the P1nckney-K1ng tic k e t. The Pennsylvania F ed eralists had been given the duty o f bringing the convention decision forward when they thought the time was rip e . A fter the N ew York meeting, however, they began to experience frig id m e ta rta rsl, ^ l a r g e l y because they detected a note o f jealousy among some of th e ir brethren fo r the 1**Even1ng P o st, September 1, 1808, p. 2; September 5, 1808, p. 2; September 28, 1808, pp. 2-3; September 29, 1808, pp. 2-3; October 1, 1808, pp. 2-3. 145For non-Latin and/or non-biology and/or non-Dun oriented readers, "frig id m etartarsl" can be tra n sla te d Into the more common lin g u is tic expression "cold fe e t." 160 small convention's having decided the Important question of the nominees w ithout any sp e c ific au th o rity to do so. In view of th is 146 uneasy sentim ent, the Pennsylvanians f e l t 1 t was expedient th a t the tic k e t appear to be the re su lt of consensus throughout the p arty. A s always, however, the Philadelphia committee would bow to the wishes 147 of the eastern F ed eralists. The p arty potentates o f the East apparently agreed, and the production o f presenting the P1nckney-K1ng tic k e t deserved an early nineteenth-century equivalent of the modem Oscar. At the beginning o f October, the Washington F ed eralist broke the news with a fanfare of p o litic a l Innocence. Observing th a t the papers were the only vehicle by which communication--leading to co-operat1on--among the party leaders In the various s ta te s could be achieved, the a r tic le asserted th at W e have . . . [published the] nomination a t th is tim e, th at the Federal e d ito rs throughout the union may lay 1t before th e ir readers, and th a t meetings may be called 1n the d if fere n t s ta te s to take the sense of the people on the su b ject, 1f th a t be necessary. In being the f i r s t to publish th e nomination, we claim no controul [sic ] over our fellow -c1t1zens—we only lay 1t before our readers fo r th e ir c o n sid e ratio n .148 The N ew York Conmerclal A dvertiser also published the tic k e t about the same time and, along with various other m inority party papers, ^4®Not o f Fred Waring fame. ^T hom as Fltzslmons to Harrison Gray O tis, October 4, 1808, Harrison Gray 0t1s Papers, Massachusetts H isto rical Society. ^®Wash1ngton F ed eralist 1n the N ew York Commercial A dvertiser, October 14, 1808, p.“ 3T 161 served to second the so -called nomination by the Washington F e d e ra list. The Commercial A dvertiser rejo iced In the apparent concurrence of opinion which ex isted among the various geographical segments of the party regarding the prospective nominees; the paper even had the audacity to a s se rt th a t the candidates were agreed upon by the d iffe re n t sections "without any general co n su ltatio n or caucussing," 149 and some s is t e r journals said much the same. In the wings, one could have heard the c r i t i c s ' cry of Bravlsslmol as the frazzled F ed eralists faced the fin ish o f the fa rc e . But 1t should be noted th a t a number o f party presses never publicized the can- 150 d id a te s, naming Instead an unpledged s la te of e le c to rs. Though the bulk o f the p arty was being brought In to lin e behind the N ew York convention tic k e t—some w ithout knowing the source o f the nomination—various leaders attempted a more complex approach. A F ed eralist meeting 1n Staunton, V irginia, during September passed resolutions supporting Pinckney and King as the nominees, but such action fa ile d to speak the sentim ents of many 151 V irginians 1n the m inority p arty . Some "pragmatic p u rists" among the southern leaders adhered generally to the tic k e t but recom mended the pragmatic course 1n some s ta te s with the view th a t th is would aid 1n a tta in in g the p u ris t goal: c e rta in of these men 149 Commercial A dvertiser, October 12, 1808, p. 3; October 14, 1808,“ p T T 150 N ew York Evening P o st, October 12, 1808, p. 2. See also Morlson, Harrison Gray O tls,~T. 307-8. 151 N ew York Evening P ost, October 4 , 1808, p. 3; October 24, 1808, p . 2. advised F ed eralists 1n V irginia, North C arolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Kentucky, where Pinckney was thought to have no chance, to throw th e ir support Into the s lig h tly resurgent Monroe movement. Such a diversion should help Pinckney and create Increased jealousy 1n Republican ranks. I f the e le ctio n went to the House o f R epresentatives, a t le a s t the party would be able to choose Monroe over Clinton or Madison In the event they were unable to carry Pinckney. The southern "h a lf breeds" hastened, however, to assure the N ew York committee o f the co-operation o f the West and 152 South 1n support o f the decision o f the August convention. Speaking fo r the N ew York committee, O liver Wolcott, J r . , rejected the hybrid approach suggested by these southern comrades, as did John Rutledge, J r . , of South C arolina. Wolcott In sisted th a t we ought to support our candidates to the extent of our power . . . . every where, w ithout considering the chance of success . . . . The federal party Is a N ational, not a S tate P arty, and we must support our cause g en erally , o r renounce I t e n tire ly : —1f we cannot a c t with some to le ra b le co n cert, our Friends w ill be discouraged where they have h ith e rto maintained an ascendancy.153 But a group of the party In V irginia had already Implemented the compromise suggestion: the F ed eralists o f Richmond met according to notice a t the Bell Tavern on October 17 and unanimously nomi nated Monroe as th e ir candidate against th e Jefferson adm inistration, 152 Archibald Lee and Robert Beverley to O liver W olcott, J r . , October 4 , 1808, O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Connecticut H isto ri cal Society. 153 Wolcott to John Rutledge, J r . , October 24, 1808, John Rutledge, J r . , Papers, Duke U niversity. Rutledge to Wolcott, October 15, 1808, O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Connecticut H istorical Society. adopted an address to th e ir colleagues elsewhere 1n the s ta te , and appointed a committee o f correspondence to work fo r Nonroe's cause. One paper erroneously thought th is nomination was 1n lin e with the 154 decision o f the N ew York convention. Wolcott denounced th is de fectio n from the regular tic k e t, w hile John Marshall called the action a mutiny and blamed 1 t on the d ire c t advice of Archibald Lee and Robert Beverley; the Chief J u s tic e , w hile not appreciating the movement, wrote candidate Pinckney to explain the reason. The nomination o f Monroe prevented the Implementation of an electo ral s la te favoring the regular F ed e ra list candidates—Pinckney and King— 155 which had been appointed a t the Staunton meeting. In the midst o f the confusion o f two nominations, some F ed eralists were reportedly going to vote fo r Madison. A few party members to the North attem pted to play other cards 1n a sim ila r game by thinking 156 o f supporting Clinton Instead o f Pinckney In N ew England. The "purlst-pragm atlst" elem ent, which was generally more pragm atist than p u ris t, refused to accept the c ritic ism of th e ir reg u lar p u ris t colleagues. Robert Beverley o f V irginia directed a vigorous p ro te st to O liver Wolcott of the N ew York committee, ^ ^The Enquirer, October 18, 1808, p. 3; October 25, 1808, p. 3. National In te llig e n c e r, October 28, 1808. 155 Wolcott to Rutledge, October 24, 1808, John Rutledge, J r . , Papers, Duke U niversity. Marshall to Pinckney (photocopy), October 19, 1808, Pinckney Family Papers, South Carolina H istorical Society. *56Franc1s Corbin to Madison, October 29, 1808, James Madison Papers, Library o f Congress. William H. Cabell to Joseph C. C abell, October 19, 1808, Cabell Family Papers, U niversity o f V irginia. Thomas Fltzslmons to Harrison Gray O tis, October 4, 1808, Harrison Gray 0t1s Papers, Massachusetts H isto rical Society. 164 complaining th a t the uncompromising Federal approach was untenable and th a t the northern and eastern sections of th e party had been u n fair to the southern wing. The root o f the d iss a tisfa c tio n lay with the fa ilu re to transm it Inform ation to some of the leaders, e sp ecially 1n V irginia and North C arolina, about the reg u lars' views on the p resid en tial question and the reasons fo r holding back the publication of the nominees' names. These breaks 1n the communications network led some southerners to think th e p u rist perspective was giving way to a more fle x ib le stance. Beverley and some o f his associates thought the p arty would decide to support a d issid e n t Republican 1f the Federal chances looked weak. Since the orthodox tic k e t In V irginia had no chance, Beverley continued to 157 recommend backing Monroe 1n hopes of taking th e sta te from Madison. In the waning weeks of the campaign, e ffo rts by Republican regulars fa ile d to bring the m inority candidates back Into the fold but were successful In consolidating additional support behind the Madison tic k e t. The ardent CUntonlans continued to push th e ir contender despite some fu rth e r thinning of th e ir already weak ranks. One Clinton admirer In siste d th e ir faction should not compromise by giving up ju s t to ensure th e ir c h ie f's electio n to the second o ffic e : ''No rath er l e t us hold out t i l l the la s t drop o f blood 1n us Is out [because] we are sure o f success 1f we only ^ B e v e rle y to W olcott, October 30, 1808, O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Connecticut H istorical Society. 158 hold to the ground we s ta rte d upon." The Madison fo rces, p a r ti cu larly In N ew York, responded by branding the Irre g u la r Republicans as p o litic a l h eretics fo r m aintaining th e ir opposition and fo r 159 fig h tin g the reg u lar nomination. In V irginia, a la te surge by some o f Monroe's adherents sought to save the cause 1n the la s t hour. In la te September, the Monroe corresponding committee published an address to the people of the s ta te which denounced the congressional nomination of Madison and In siste d the Secretary o f S ta te 's support In the party a t larg e was su b sta n tia lly less than h is lieu ten an ts had sa id . O n the p o sitiv e s id e , the tr e a tis e lauded Monroe as b e tte r q u a lified to cope with the n a tio n 's problems, notably those on the In tern atio n al scene. A Monroe s la te of e le cto rs was also published. The Enquirer n a tu ra lly sought to rebut these assertio n s and to defend the caucus and Madison's c a p a b ilitie s . About mid- October, the committee disseminated an obviously p artisan e lectio n estim ate which gave Monroe 95 certain votes, lis te d V irginia as doubtful, and assigned 57 sure e lec to rs to Madison. The rep o rt awarded prospective Federal s ta te s , as well as N ew York, to Monroe.160 Such a prediction requires fu rth e r examination of the re la tio n 158 "A Statesman and republican" to D e W1tt C linton, September 11, 1808, D e W1tt Clinton Papers, Columbia U niversity. 159 A. B utler to George Washington Campbell, September 15, 1808, George Washington Campbell Papers, Library o f Congress. N ew York Comwerclal A dvertiser, September 9, 1808, p. 2. 160Henry S t. George Tucker to James G arnett, October 18, 1808, Henry S t. George Tucker Papers, Duke U niversity. The Enquirer, September 30, p. 3; October 18, 1808, p. 3. Archlbala Lee and Robert Beverley to O liver W olcott, J r . , October 4, 1808, O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Connecticut H isto rical Society. 166 ship between Monroe and C linton, Monroe and the F e d e ra lists, and Clinton and the F e d e ra lists. Considerable confusion ex isted around each of these s itu a tio n s . A s noted e a r lie r , some pragm atically- oriented southern F ed eralists advised th a t some s ta te s 1n th e ir sec tio n support Monroe Instead of Pinckney with a view to hurt Madison. These d issenters from the p u rist plan were successful 1n ra lly in g a sig n ific a n t number o f V irginia F ed eralists behind Monroe, which accounts fo r his com m ittee's w illingness to assign Federal votes to th e ir man—probably thinking th e opposition party most every where would follow the same course. Moreover, the Monroe committee declared Clinton to be th e ir v1ce-pres1dent1a1 candidate and asserted he would be happy to serve with Monroe. O n th e other hand, the N ew York American C itizen In sisted th at 1f th e Monroe tic k e t triumphed 1n the Old Dominion, the electors would name Clinton fo r President and the d issid en t Virginian fo r the second o ffic e .161 A Monroe ad v ise r, L ittle to n W . Tazewell, bemoaned the In a c tiv ity o f the candidate and his su p p o rters, notably the Randolph fa ctio n . Some zeal e a r lie r would, he thought, have put Monroe 1n ex cellen t p o sitio n , but perhaps th ere was s t i l l time to save the day fo r the opposition Republicans. The F ederalists were mounting a su rp risin g ly strong attack on th e Madisonian p arty , but they would be unable to win on th e ir own. The only way was fo r Monroe to e ffe c t a union 161The Enquirer, October 11, 1808, p. 3; October 21, 1808, p. 2. Archibald Lee and Robert Beverley to O liver W olcott, J r . , October 4 , 1808, O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Connecticut H isto rical Society. 167 with C linton, which would, 1n tu rn , cause the F ed eralists—1n view o f th e ir certain f a ilu r e —to turn to the m inority Republicans. I f such a three-way opposition c o a litio n could be arranged, Madison could y e t be stopped. To e ffe c t th is arranqement, the Monroe forces should do th re e th in g s: cease c ritic iz in g the F e d e ra lists, w rite to N ew York to suggest the p lan , and come out strongly against Madison. I t would be b est fo r Monroe to give p rio rity to Clinton as the p resid en tial candidate because of th e an ti-V irg in ia sentiment among so many of those outside the s ta te who opposed Madison. In fa c t, Tazewell recommended th a t th e committee suggest to the Monroe ele cto rs th a t they c a st th e ir p resid en tial b allo ts fo r Clinton and th e ir second vote fo r the V irginian. Such magnanimity In the c o alitio n would lik e ly ensure Monroe's ultim ate residence 1n the White House, though some o f his friends might not be w illing to give up his claims fo r 1808J®2 Indeed, n e ith e r Monroe nor h is friends were w illin g to surrender h is pretensions to Clinton a t th is p o in t; every time the V irginia opposition candidate offered to withdraw, his friends In siste d on keeping him 1n the race 1n the b e lie f th a t—win o r lose—th e ir cause would be a worthwhile p ro te st. Monroe had heard th a t his claims were above those o f the N ew Yorker In the East and reported by la te October th a t Clinton had promised to support him 1f he could win. The Old Dominion Irre g u la r believed th a t the d issid en t can- 162Tazewell to Monroe, October 8, 1808, James Monroe Papers, Library o f Congress. didate who had the best chance to beat Madison should be backed by the opposition Republicans; such a decision could only be made a f te r the ele cto rs had been chosen, however. Monroe also f e l t many F ed eralists would turn to him when they saw th e ir prospects to be hopeless. I f he won Massachusetts by F ed eralist a id , the other eastern s ta te s might choose him as w ell. One problem with F ed eralist support, however, was the use which the regular Republicans could make o f 1t to woo Irre g u la r and marginal members back Into the m ajority fo ld . The la te word from N ew York seemed to su b stan tiate Monroe's feelin g s about Clinton. The American C itizen was reported to have published the V irginia committee's address favoring Monroe fo r the top spot, while various confidants o f the V ice-President were p riv a te ly saying he was no longer 1n the c o n te st. Writing from the Empire s ta te , John Nicholas predicted th a t George Clinton would decline both o ffic es on the eve o f the elec tio n and th a t Monroe would be Informed of th is plan 1n order to encourage his continuing. Nicholas thought the C11nton1ans would also suggest De W1tt Clinton to run 1n his u n cle's place fo r the second spot on the Madison s la te ; many F e d e ra lists, he thought, would probably run D e W1tt Clinton and Monroe as th e ir tic k e t. George Clinton, however, did not o f fic ia lly withdraw from the race fo r e ith e r o ffic e , though h is chances o f winning the presidency were v irtu a lly n o n -ex isten t, nor was a firm c o a litio n concluded w ith Monroe on 169 164 the basis o f a uniform tic k e t. The fin a l scene 1n the Republican drama occurred when the e le c tio n was c le a rly 1n Madison's hands: a la s t attem pt to purqe Clinton from th e regular tic k e t as the penalty fo r having continued to run so long ag ain st—as well as w ith—the caucus nominee. Throughout the la s t two months o f the campaign various rumblings, Including some a t public meetings, were heard which demanded e ith e r conformity or o u ster fo r the Incumbent V ice-President. These feelings were In te n sifie d In some minds when some Clinton forces continued to work fo r his p resid en tial cause, and the triumphant Mad1son1ans were In a p o sitio n to Implement th e ir th re a ts . One disgusted regular In N ew York hoped th a t Samuel Smith, Samuel R. Bradley, John Quincy Adams, and John Langdon would get su b stan tial v1ce-pres1dent1al votes, so the Senate could keep Clinton out. There was something o f a movement, esp ecially In V irginia, to displace the " tr a ito r ," and an ele cto r wrote to a Madison campaign s tr a te g is t, Wilson Cary Nicholas, asking his opinion on th is Item. A fter considerable thought— and doubtless some consultation as w ell—Nicholas, despite the wishes of many o f his colleagues to drop the double candidate, chose the path o f co n ciliatio n ra th e r than of schism, hoping to mend the Republican breaches by urging V irg in ia's e lecto rs to support Clinton fo r V ice-President. Moreover, the caucus noml- 164John Nicholas to Wilson Cary Nicholas, October 11, 1808, Carter-Smlth Family Papers, U niversity o f V irginia. 170 nation had been offered to the N ew Yorker but never withdrawn* and any departure from the congressional choice might well Impair fu tu re confidence 1n th a t system as well as ex cite Increased jealousy against V irginia, e sp ecially 1n Pennsylvania and N ew York. Since the nomination o f a V irginia candidate had been respected elsewhere, 1t would Indeed be awkward fo r the Old Dominion to renege on the candidate from another s ta te . More over, Nicholas f e l t there was In su ffic ie n t evidence to prove th at the V ice-President collaborated with th e F e d e ra lists, thus elim inating th a t cap ital charge as a reason fo r breaking the reg u lar s la te . The e lecto rs a t Richmond who opposed Clinton liste n e d to such advice, g r ittin g th e ir teeth and relu c ta n tly voting fo r the caucus tic k e t In ta c t; 1n addition to N icholas' In ju n ctio n s, they were motivated by th e Importance o f the Empire 165 s ta te and the favor shown Clinton outside V irginia. The general trend of the la s t weeks of the campaign was to 165 Preston to Nicholas, November 15, 1808; Nicholas to [P reston], December 3, 1808; Spencer Roane to Nicholas, December 8, 1808; and P h ilip N. Nicholas to W . C. N icholas, December 17, 1808, Wilson Cary Nicholas Papers, Library o f Congress. See also N ew York Evening Po s t, September 28, 1808, p. 3. Aurora, September 29, 1808, p. 2. Morgan Lewis to James Madison, November 11, 1808; Thomas T lllo tso n to Madison, November 15, 1808, James Madison Papers, Library of Congress. [J. H. Douglass] to Madison, November 5, 14, 1808, James Madison Papers, N ew York Public Library. T lllo tso n wrote Madison th a t some CUntonlans were s t i l l —as o f November—attem ptlng to a ttr a c t F ed eralist support fo r th e ir man and seeking to su b stitu te De W itt Clinton as the v ice-p resid en tial candidate. J . H. Douglass, another confidant, wrote th a t the c le a r Madison victory resu lted In a few co n ciliato ry noises from some New Yorkers a t Albany, though he f e lt they might s t i l l work to get De W1tt, Instead of George, elected to the second o ffic e . 171 herd more Republican and F ed eralist sheep Into the respective reg u lar p o litic a l folds fo r th e final count. Numerous Republican meetings which declared th e ir approval of the caucus tic k e t were held during th is season. There were also reports o f F ed eralist gatherings which passed reso lu tio n s In favor o f the P1nckney-K1ng s la te . Contrary to the In sisten ce of The Enquirer th a t the F ed eralists would support e ith e r Clinton or Monroe, depending on which one looked b e st, continued pressure was exerted w ithin the p arty to bring both the dogmatic pragm atists and the quasi-pragm atists Into lin e ; questions about the proper course to pursue were answered by the reg u lars, who In siste d on the course decided a t the N ew York convention: support of Pinckney and King. The "regularizing" Influences worked well fo r the two p a rtie s: the 47 Federal electo rs c ast th e ir b a llo ts 1n a u n ified fashion fo r Pinckney and King, while the Republicans, s lig h tly less consolidated, gave Madison 122 e le c to ra l votes and Clinton 6 (from N ew York). There was a b i t less unity fo r the Republican v1ce-pres1dent1al choice: C lin to n 's p resid en tial e le c to rs divided th e ir second votes equally between Monroe and Madison. Nine members o f the dominant party were exasperated enough to drop Clinton and to vote fo r John Langdon Instead.*®® 166Aurora. September 2, 1808, p. 2; September 5, 1808, p. 2; September 22, 1808, p. 3; September 30, 1808, p. 2. National In te llig e n c e r. September 2, 1808, p. 2. The Enquirer, September 23, 1808, p. 2; October 25, 1808, p. 3. N ew York Evening Post, November 4, 1808, p. 3. Jonathan Russell to Samuel Smltn, September 13, 1808, Samuel Smith Papers, Library o f Congress. William Gaston to John Rutledge, J r . , November 8, 1808, John Rutledge, J r . , Papers, Southern H isto rical C o llectio n , U niversity o f North Carolina. E. B. 172 Thus, the Republican caucus had been upheld and strengthened by I ts ce n trip e ta l Influence 1n aiding p arty d iscip lin e even 1n the face o f considerable c ritic ism from F ed eralists and d issid e n t Republicans a lik e . The Irre g u la r candidates, Clinton and Monroe, were nominated larg ely by newspapers and local m eetings; such a c tio n s, however, merely formalized the ex istin g statu s o f the men as p artic ip a n ts 1n the co n test. Madison's resounding triumph ob viously strengthened the Influence of the caucus 1n re la tio n to o th er methods o f naming p resid en tial hopefuls. The p a rtia l convention of the Federal party also functioned well enough to re s u lt 1n a return engagement 1n the 1812 campaign drama. Despite the p o litic a l confusion during 1808—Including both the d issid en t Republican candidates appearing to wear more than one ele c to ra l h a t—the two reg u lar nominating devices brought a fa r g rea te r degree o f unity than might have been expected under such circum stances. Caldwell to William Gaston, November 26, 1808, William Gaston Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North C arolina. O liver W olcott, J r . , to Frederick W olcott, November 14, 1808, O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Connecticut H isto rical Society. John Randolph to Joseph H. Nicholson, November 14, 1808, Shlppen Family Papers, Library o f Congress. CHAPTER I I I N O M IN A T IO N S IN 1812: C A U C U S R EPU B LICA N S V E R SU S IR R EG U LA R S A N D P R A G M A T IC FEDERALISTS The p o litic a l scenario experienced only s lig h t a lte ra tio n s for the respective nominating sk its In 1812: Madison, of course, was run ning as the Incumbent rath er than as the Secretary of S ta te , and Monroe was h is a lly Instead of his opponent. But the Clintons were again to be arrayed against the party requlars and the congressional nomination, w hile the F ederalists Indulged 1n another Internal struggle between pragm atists and p u rists to see whether the e lecto ral race would be run by two men or th ree. The re la tiv e s im ila ritie s of the two p artisan dramas of 1812 compared with those of 1808, however, make the d ifferences seem even more 1ntr1gu1nq—almost as 1f the observer were seeing the same play again but with changes th a t were at once su b stan tial and su b tle. Madison faced no easy task 1n following h is predecessor to the White House. Though he had played a key ro le —cum ulatively g reater than Jefferso n —1n founding the national government under the C onstitution and 1n organizing the Republican p a rty , esp ecially during the years 1794-1796, Madison f e ll short o f the charisma and the breadth of Influence of the man whom he helped to make President before him. Monroe and many of his adherents did stumble 173 174 back Into the regular fold during Madison's f i r s t term, 1t 1s tru e , but a number o f the p arty f e lt lukewarm toward the P resident. Faced with a precarious International scene--as was Jefferso n —1n which the scales needed but a s lig h t additional weight to s h if t the balance to war, Madison often pursued a v a c illa tin g course. William H. Crawford remarked th a t the P resid en t's message to Congress In early 1810 was so cautious 1t pleased almost a ll the members: Every man makes 1 t ju st what he pleases. W hen a monster. . . or a ghost has made I ts appearance, 1t Immediately assumes th at shape, colour, form, and general contour which th e frightened, w ild, and vivid Imagination o f each beholder can possibly conceive. L isten to th e ir many d escrip tio n s, and you w ill have as many d is tin c t Individual m onsters. . . as there were sp ectato rs. Ju st so 1t has happened with th e Message. One says I t 1s a war-message—another 1t Is fo r peace. . . . Poor Manl I believe they would give him up 1f he had not the d istrib u tio n of the loaves and fish e s. . . .1 B asically, Madison sought to pursue the Jeffersonian policy of avoiding war with a European power. A Virginian In Congress thought the President was opposed to a c o n flic t but f e l t th a t enough 1n- p trlg u e rs favored war to force the Issue. Some other analysts 1n the c a p ita l, however, believed Madison was prepared to go to war I f no arrangement respecting American rig h ts were concluded with the Br1t- IwilHam H. Crawford to James Hamilton, January 2, 1810, William H. Crawford Papers, Library o f Congress. ^Hugh Nelson to Charles E verette, December 16, 1811, Hugh Nelson Papers, Library of Congress. ^John A. Harper to William Plumer (copy), December 2, 1811, William Plumer Papers, Library o f Congress. Nathaniel Macon to Joseph H. Nicholson, Janurary 9, 1812, Joseph H. Nicholson Papers, Library of Congress. The o u ster o f Robert Smith from the S tate Department In the f a ll of 1811 and the corresponding appointment of Monroe to th a t o ffic e helped to en g raft an Important segment back Into the regular faction o f the p arty —though opening the door fo r possible opposition from the Smith fa c tio n . But even Samuel Smith, while noting the prospect o f an In tra -p a rty opposition to Madison by those favoring John Armstrong, adm itted th a t he expected the P resident would w ith stand th e re -e le ctio n t e s t . The Armstrong sentim ent faded, though n o t disappearing, and Monroe would, o f course, remain out o f the 4 running. The t r a i l o f the reg u lar nomination seemed as though I t might be less rugged. By la te October of 1811, one observer reported th a t Madison—not unexpectedly—would d e fin ite ly be the candidate, though no agreement had been concluded on the vice- p resid en tial q u estio n , and the same man In sisted a t the end of th e year th a t Madison looked lik e a sure winner. Such undiluted optimism would fade somewhat In the face o f the opposing nominations made during e lectio n y e a r, however? Indeed, I t was evident by e a rly 1812 th a t Madison would not carry th e Republican e le c tio n banner uncontested. There were various In trig u es reportedly under way designed to achieve the electio n o f an ^Samuel Smith to John Smith, June 3, 1811, Carter-Sm lth Family Papers, U niversity o f V irginia. Henry S t. George Tucker to James M . G arnett, Ju ly 5, 1811, Henry S t. George Tucker Papers, Duke U niversity. Edward Coles to Dolley Madison, June 10, 1811, James Madison Papers, Library o f Congress. V f 111am Plumer to John Quincy Adams (copy), October 25, 1811; Plumer to Charles Cutts (copy), December 30, 1811, William Plumer Papers, Library o f Congress. 176 anti-M adison N ew Yorker—e lth e r D e W itt Clinton o r Armstrong—as P resident o r V ice-President. A congressman from the Old Dominion thought some members were supporting D e W1tt Clinton fo r the p re si dential c h a ir .6 John Randolph, who was le ss than a warm frien d of Madison, observed th a t there was a strong factio n opposed to the P resident among the Republicans, though he was unable to p red ict the course of the d issid e n ts: "There 1s 1n the m ajo rity , as th a t motley group In Congress Is c a lle d , a very considerable party averse to the presen t P alIn aras. Whether th e ir h o s tility w ill develop I ts e lf a t the ensuing e le c tio n , 1t Is not y e t determined even among them selves.”^ F ed eralists In sisted th a t a North-South s p li t ex isted 1n the dominant p arty regarding the p resid en tial question; confidence 1n the V irginian seemed ra th e r weak, esp ecially among some of the northern members.** But Nathaniel Macon, long a knowledgeable Republican lead er, asserted In la te January th a t any attem pt to r a lly su b stan tial s e n ti ment throughout th e party against Madison's re -e le c tio n had fa ile d . Whatever opposition might develop would have to function outside the mainstream of the party. ®L. Tazewell to James Monroe, January 17, 1812, James Monroe Papers, Library o f Congress. Edwin Gray to Tazewell, January 10, 1812, Tazewell Family Papers, V irginia S tate L ibrary. ^Randolph to James M . G arnett, January 20, 1812, Randolph- G am ett Letterbook, Library o f Congress. ^William Reid to Timothy Pickering, January 20, 1812, Timothy Pickering Papers, Massachusetts H isto rical Society. ^Macon to Joseph H. Nicholson, January 23, 1812, Joseph H. Nicholson Papers, Library o f Congress. See also Randolph to Nichol son (ty p e s c rip t), February 2, 1812, Bruce-Randolph C ollection, V irginia S tate Library. In the midst o f such speculation about the next ch ief executive, a re p o rt came from Washington th a t a caucus had already met and named D e W1tt Clinton as th e ir p resid en tial candidate and Henry Clay fo r the second o ffic e . Clinton was 1n the c a p ita l during th is season, and some believed he was seeking to re c ru it and to align his forces fo r the p resid en tial nomination, which lik e ly stim ulated the rumor of a caucus In h is fa v o r.10 Hugh Nelson o f V irginia complained th a t Clinton and Gouvemeur Morris were "working 1n a ll the f i l t h , muck and mire o f In trig u e ," and th a t the Clinton factio n began to talk of running Simon Snyder of Pennsylvania fo r the vice-presidency on a tic k e t no doubt led by th e ir c h ie f.11 No caucus had been held, however, and the pro- Madison National In te llig e n c e r was quick to re fu te the fa lse re p o rt, In sistin g they had heard o f no opposition to Madison. But a t le a s t some party members did seem anxious fo r a decision on the composition of th e national tic k e t. There was considerable discussion of the question a t the c a p ita l, and Madison was c le a rly 1n position fo r a renom lnation, despite some feelin g favoring a change. A Tennessee p o litic ia n 1n Washington thought he observed considerable In trig u in g designed to bring th e younger Clinton In f i r s t In the p resid en tial race, but an eastern er reported th is to be unlik ely —or a t le a s t done ^ I n te llig e n c e r . In the N ew York Evening P o st, January 27, 1812, p. 2. William Plumer to John A. Harper (copy), January 28, February 6, 1812, William Plumer Papers, Library o f Congress. ^N elson to Joseph C. C abell, December 28, [1811], Cabell Family Papers, U niversity o f V irginia. Nelson to Charles E verette, December 16, 1811, Hugh Nelson Papers, Library o f Congress. 178 q u ie tly .12 John C. Smith, a Connecticut F e d e ra list, also discounted the pro-Clinton rumors, In sistin g th a t D e W1tt would be fo rtu n ate to win the vice-presidency. The younger C linton, Elbrldge Gerry, and John Quincy Adams were among the primary contenders fo r the vice-presidency, though 1t was said th a t George Clinton might be unw illing to surrender h is p o sitio n , even In favor of h is nephew. Some nevertheless thought th a t nephew D e W1tt was the stro n g est candidate as of e a rly February.13 The Madison cause received a boost In February o f e lectio n year when an e lec to ra l tic k e t favoring h is candidacy was selected by the V irginia le g isla tiv e caucus. Some Republicans, notably the C11n- to n lan s, were offended by th is de facto nomination, feelin g th a t the action was designed to ensure the choice of Madison by a congressional caucus. The reg u lar movement was fu rth e r boosted when Republican members o f the Pennsylvania le g isla tu re met and unanimously nominated both Madison and George Clinton fo r re-electio n to th e ir respective p o sts. Though two o f the la rg e st s ta te s had thus committed themselves to the Incumbent, 1 t was Increasingly evident th a t N ew York would provide a base o f support fo r the younger C linton. A pamphlet speaking fo r Clinton and against V irginia and Madison was published by some d issid e n t Republicans In the Empire s ta te , while c e rta in observers 1n Washington thought the congressional delegation from N ew York would 12James A. Bayard to Andrew Bayard, February 1* 1812, James A. and Richard H. Bayard Papers, Library o f Congress. The Enquirer (Richmond), February 6, 1812, p. 2. Felix Grundy to Andrew Jackson, February 21, 1812, Andrew Jackson Papers, Library o f Congress. 13Sm1th to David Daggett, January 23, 1812, John Cotton Smith L e tte rs , Belnecke L ibrary, Yale U niversity. 179 I n s is t on bringing th e ir man forward as a contender fo r the f i r s t 14 o ffic e . Indeed, the Albany Register was already carrying his banner. N ew York's p o ten tial disposition toward Clinton nearly caused the congressional nominating caucus to meet 1n March. The National In te llig e n c e r reported th a t on March 16 a s e c re t caucus had been held 1n Albany to determine the strength of the opposition to Madison which could be aroused 1n the s ta te . The Albany gathering supposedly re jec te d proposals to make a nomination a t th a t tim e, deciding Instead to appoint a committee to survey the northern and western s ta te s to see I f a c o a litio n favoring Clinton could be arranged. The word about th is meeting I n itia lly suggested Clinton had been o f fic ia lly put Into the race, but th is report was Immediately denied. A rumor th a t the F ed eralists would unite w ith the d issid en t Republicans to run the N ew Yorker was also current 1n some c irc le s . Whatever the s itu a tio n , the regulars were well aware o f the support fo r Clinton In his home s ta te , and the prospect o f a non-regular candidate g ettin g under way doubtless stim ulated some Madison backers to get o ff th e ir c o lle ctiv e p o litic a l rears and to begin making noises fo r a Washington nomination. In f a c t, a congressional caucus was apparently scheduled fo r March 23, but the gathering was postponed—supposedly for a few days—purportedly with a view to receiving d e fin ite word from Albany on C lin to n 's nomination. ' V Enquirer. February 18, 1812, p. 2; March 19, 1812, p. 3. Aurora (P h ilad elp h ia), March 4, 1812, p. 2. Philadelphia Democratic Press In the N ew York Evening P o st. March 11, 1812, p. 2. Evening Post, March 13, 1812, p . 2. John fimns to John S m llle, March 19, 1612, A lbert G allatin Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. John A. Harper to William Plumer (copy), March 15, 1812, William Plumer Papers, Library o f Congress. D iffic u lty In g ettin g th e Republican congressmen together fo r a caucus also contributed to the delay. The New York Evening Post expressed doubt th a t the Albany meeting had ever occurred, even assertin g th a t th e sto ry had probably been fab ricated In Washington to aid 1n con vening a congressional convocation to nominate Madison. The cap ital correspondent o f the Post fu rth e r suggested th a t there was s u ffic ie n t opposition among Republicans to nominating th e President by caucus th a t the Madlsonlans would be forced to forsake th is method. Whatever the case, the caucus was not held during th is period, while a New York nomination of Clinton was squelched by Governor Daniel D. Tompkins' prorogation o f the le g isla tu re u n til th e l a t t e r part o f May. There was thus something o f a standoff In the b a ttle o f the nominations: Clinton was tem porarily blocked from being o f fic ia lly named 1n N ew York, while the Madison cause was unable to a ttr a c t s u ffic ie n t enthusiasm to produce a congressional caucus, perhaps larg ely because no sele ctio n o f Clinton had been effected a t A lbanyJ5 In 1808, the regular Republicans had sought to reconcile the CU ntonlans to the Madison cause by nominating the N ew York ch ief fo r re -e le c tio n as V ice-President, though th e maneuver was less than suc c e ssfu l; there was ta lk In 1812 o f u tiliz in g th e same stra te g y with I^EdwIn Gray to L ittle to n W . Tazewell, March 20 1812, Tazewell Family Papers, V irginia State L ibrary. John A. Harper to William Plumer (copy), March 22, 1812, William Plumer Papers, Library of Congress. James Kelly to Timothy Pickering, March 30, 1812, Timothy Pickering Papers, Massachusetts H isto rical Society. Aurora. March 30, 1812, p. 2; April 14, 1812, p. 2. Evening P o st, March 26, 1812, p. 2; March 30, 1812, p. 3; March 31, 181Z, p . 2. James M . G arnett to John Randolph, April 12, 1812, Randolph-Gamett Letterbook, Library of Congress. D e W itt C linton, who had assumed the mantle of leadership o f the factio n from his aging uncle. The N ew York delegation In Congress a t f i r s t seemed In sis te n t upon supporting th e ir home s ta te contender fo r the top o ffic e but apparently found few who would co-operate with them 1n such an endeavor. Some congressmen thought by April th a t the Empire s ta te men were w illin g to take the h a lf loaf by patching up In tra -p a rty d ifferen ces and uniting upon a tic k e t o f Madison and D e W1tt C linton. But the concession came too la te : the members who would have accepted such a compromise early 1n the session appeared less w illin g to agree. Though the N ew Yorker might s t i l l be named as th e regular candidate fo r the second o ffic e , one member believed th is course would be fo r many “lik e ex tractin g te e th ." Other p o ten tial v ic e-p re sid e n tia l candi dates talked about a t th is time Included John Langdon, Elbridge Gerry, Gideon Granger, Daniel D. Tompkins, and Simon S n y d erJ6 Considerable restlessn ess ex isted In some c irc le s about the delay 1n arranging the congressional nomination. George Clinton died 1n April o f electio n y ear, thus giving De Witt undiluted leadership o f th e faction and removing any b a rrie r from his uncle, however sm all, to his nomination on a Madison tic k e t, though such a se le c tio n was unlikely by th is time. But no caucus seemed to be Immediately fo rth coming. Some observers suggested th a t congressional control o f the choice o f Republican p resid en tial candidate was being employed by the so -called War Hawks In th e ir stru g g le to force a re tic e n t Madison Into I^John Randolph to James M . G arnett, April 7, 9, 1812, Randolph- G am ett Correspondence, U niversity of V irginia. John A. Harper to William Plumer (copy), A pril 13, 1812, William Plumer Papers, Library o f Congress. 182 a b e llig e re n t course: war, under th is In te rp re ta tio n , was the p ric e the P resident would have to pay fo r his nomination. Such a view brings up the Important question of the re la tio n sh ip between the le g is la tiv e and executive branches of the government. The caucus was obviously a p o ten tial weapon of the le g is la tiv e branch, but could I t be used by Congress to coerce the P resident Into a policy which he wished to avoid?1* A ctually, the case favoring the In te rp re ta tio n th a t the pro-war congressmen forced Madison to go to war ag ain st h is wishes Is ra th e r weak. Irving Brant, Madison's most capable and p r o lif ic biographer, argues persuasively th a t the commander-ln-chlef was considerably more w illin g to fig h t England than the tra d itio n a l view adm its, and much of the recent historiography on th is question takes the same approach.18 One o f the primary pieces o f evidence to support the Idea of Congress forcing Madison by means of the caucus 1s the d iary end correspondence of the B ritish m in ister to America, S ir Augustus F oster. The English envoy wrote Lord Castlereagh In early M ay th a t the usual nomination had been delayed because the war party were suspicious of the P resid en t's In ten tio n s, and he l a te r expressed the opinion In his personal notes th a t a commitment to a war policy was a condition of Madison's se le c tio n by the le g is la tu re . I t seems ev ident, however, th a t Foster could 1*James M . G arnett to John Randolph, April 28, 1812, Randolph- G am ett Letterbook, Library o f Congress. 18B rant, James Madison: The P resid en t, 1809-1812 (Indianapolis and N ew York, 1956), 4Z1-83. See also Norman K. R lsjord, "1812: Conservatives, War Hawks, and the N ation's Honor," William and Mary Q uarterly, Third S e rie s, XVIII (A pril, 1961), 196-2TTT 183 scarcely be considered an "Insider" when 1t came to the Intim ate policy-making developments w ithin the adm inistration, and hence his comments are less than a u th o r ita tiv e J 9 A F ed eralist 1n Washington wrote the N ew York Commercial A dvertiser In June th a t a War Hawk committee composed of Henry Clay, -Felix Grundy, and John C. Calhoun paid two v is its to Madison 1n which they supposedly forced the President to agree to war In return fo r h is renom ination.20 The obvious p a rtisa n bias o f the m inority p arty , which wished to d isc re d it both the war and th e caucus nomination, makes such a rep o rt highly questionable even on a prime fa c ie b asis; when viewed In the context of re late d sources, 1 t becomes c learly fa lse . Another ex h ib it 1n the tra d itio n a l b r ie f Is a p a ir o f debates 1n the House o f Representatives In 1813 during which a sim ilar charge was made: a committee of War Hawks reportedly delivered an ultimatum to Madison demanding war or no re -e le c tio n . W hen F ed eralist Timothy Pickering la te r sought to v erify th is sto ry —no doubt to make some p o litic a l hay—he fin a lly gave up 1n disgust because his Information fa ile d to support the accusation.2^ Even the notes o f Samuel Smith, who was le ss than a devotee o f Madison, support the Idea the executive f e l t during the e n tire congressional session th a t 1 f no accommodation ^R ich ard Beale Davis, e d ., Jefferso n ian America: Notes on the United S tates o f America Collected"*!"". . by Augustus John Foster (San Marino, C alifo rn ia, 1954), 89, 97-99. 20Comnerc1al A dvertiser. June 19, 1812, p. 3. 21 Pickering to Abraham Shepherd, February 12, 1814; Shepherd to Plckerfnq, February 20, 1814. In Henry Adams, The L ife of A lbert G allatin (New York, 1943), 457-59. 184 could be arranged with England, war should be declared. Additional sig n ific a n t evidence, as Brant and others have demonstrated, points 22 1n the same d ire ctio n . In s h o rt, I t seems evident th a t the control of p resid en tia l nominations through the caucus was not used by Congress to force a r e c a lc itra n t Madison Into war—I f fo r no other reason than the fact he was scarcely r e c a lc itra n t, not to mention th e absence of re lia b le documentary proof o f such a move. I t Is not e n tire ly u n lik ely , of course, th a t Madison might have realized the p o ten tial Influence of Congress over the President 1n such a case; conclusive evaluation o f the ro le such an outlook might have played In shaping his a ttitu d e toward the war would be d if f ic u lt 1n the absence of sp e c ific evidence, however. Indeed, had the War Hawks sought to dump Madison, to w hom would they have turned fo r a candidate? Congress was not so lid ly enough pro-war to have purged the President without a colossal In tra party melee which would lik e ly have caused a fa r more dangerous Republican s p lit than fin a lly developed. In any case, 1t was (and 1s) v irtu a lly Impossible fo r a party to deny an Incumbent nomina tio n fo r a second term. Thus, Clinton had no chance to gam er the Washington nomination, nor did his forces make a sig n ific a n t e ffo rt 22 Notes of Smith, March 31, 1812, Samuel Smith Papers, Library o f Congress. The Republicans, obviously, did not represent a to ta lly unified fro n t, as the war vote In d ic ates, but with enough congress men and executive w illin g n ess, the measure was c a rrie d . Some F ed eralists exaggerated Republican d iv isio n . William R. Davie to John Haywood, April 8, 1812, Ernest Haywood C o llectio n , Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. 185 1n view o f the nearly Impossible odds. Madison's selectio n was In ev ita b le , becoming only a m atter o f tim e. The question o f his running mate remained to be decided, though by early M ay the cu rren t s t i l l seemed to be running away from Clinton and 1n favor of John 23 Langdon o r Elbrldge Gerry. The magic hour arrived In mid-May. On M ay 16, the National In te llig e n c e r published the announcement th a t the caucus would be held on the evening of M ay 18 in the Senate Chamber. O n the appointed n ig h t, 81 members o f Congress and two te r r ito r ia l delegates (Indiana and M ississippi) gathered to make th e ir nomination. J . B. Vamum o f Massachusetts was chosen as chairman o f th e group and Richard M . Johnson of Kentucky as secretary . A fter th e purpose o f the meeting had been re ite ra te d , the p a rtic ip a n ts c a st th e ir b a llo ts: Madison received 82 votes and one person abstained. In the contest fo r Madison's running mate, John Langdon of New Hampshire defeated Elbrldge Gerry o f M assachusetts, 64-16, w hile 2 were sca tte re d . The party had again constructed a geographically balanced tic k e t. The gathering also adopted resolutions declaring the two candidates to be the p a rty 's nominees and appointed a committee of correspondence and arrangement which consisted of one member from each s ta te . Approx im ately 55 o f the Republicans were not p resen t, but many of these were away from the c a p ita l. As might have been expected, New York's *3John A. Harper to William Plumer (copy), M ay 5 , 1812, William Plumer Papers, Library of Congress. The Enquirer. M ay 1, 1812, p. 1. National In te llig e n c e r, M ay lb , 1812, p. 3. 186 Republican congressmen were distinguished by the larg e st percentage of absentees: the evidence suggests th a t fiv e or le ss of the Empire s ta te members were present. Thus, d esp ite the numerous congressmen who were away from Washington and those who refused to attend the meeting, Madison had received an absolute m ajority of the Republican members. As 1n 1808, however, the C lintonian Irreg u lars would u tiliz e a n ti caucus as a major weapon 1n th e ir p o litic a l arsenal against the Madisonian regulars.** Various pro-Clinton newspapers n a tu rally responded to the con gressional nomination with dismay, and some F ederalist p rin ts joined 1n the chorus with a view, no doubt, of exacerbating any Republican s p l i t and o f helping th e ir own cause. The Philadelphia P o litic a l R eg ister, fo r example, asserted th a t " th is self-created college has assumed an Indecorous and unconstitutional authority 1n these nomi n atio n s," In sistin g th a t the caucus In d irec tly tran sferred the rig h t of suffrage to Congress.25 With equal p re d ic ta b ility , those papers favorable to the P re sid e n t's re -electio n generally declared 2* National In te l1Iqencer. M ay 16, 1812, p. 3; M ay 19, 1812, p. 3; M ay Z l, l8 iz , p. 3. Charleston C ourier, M ay 30, 1812, p. 2. The Enquirer, M ay 22, 1812, p. 2 ; M ay 26, 1812, p. 1. N ew York Evening P o st, M ay 22, 1812, p. 2; M ay 23, 1812, p. 2. William A. burweli tcTWilson Cary N icholas, M ay 23, 1812, Wilson Cary Nicholas Papers, U niversity o f V irginia. 25 New York Evening P ost. M ay 23, 1812, p. 2. National I n te l lig e n c e r, M ay 21, 1812, p. 3. American & Commercial Daily A dvertiser B a ltim o re ), M ay 19, 1812, p. 3; M ay 22, 1812, p. 5. P o litic a l R egister 1n the Charleston C ourier, June 2 , 1812, p. 2. 187 th e ir s a tisfa c tio n with th e nomination and urqed p arty u nity. A N ew Hampshire journal even p rin ted a compliment to th e ir southern brethren 4 C fo r nominating a northern v1ce-pres1dent1a1 contender. Hezeklah N iles supported th e caucus as the most p ractica b le mode o f sele ctin g nominees; how e lse could candidates be p u t forward In such a large nation without considerable confusion? N iles shows In sig h t when he b lu n tly remarked th a t "those who condemn the manner In which the nomination was made, are ra th e r d is s a tis fie d with the persons nomina te d , w ithout having candor enough to confess 1 t ." 27 While th is a ttitu d e co n trasts with N ile s' vehement opposition to th e caucus a fte r 1820 and doubtless was not universally ap p licab le, 1t demonstrates perception o f the motives o f most p o litic ia n s o f the tim e. P o litic s was a real game w ith real sta k e s, and Issues were fu lly exploited as p o litic a l weapons —though frequently being couched 1n terms represen tin g somewhat more altruism on the part o f the contesting sides than a ctu ally existed. While Madison, of course, accepted h is p a rty 's c a ll fo r con tinued serv ice, Langdon responded to the nomination by p o lite ly Informing the caucus committee th a t his age and health prevented him from running.2* * Accordingly, the committee of arrangement Issued a notice fo r another caucus meeting scheduled fo r June 8. W hen th e group 26 N ew Hampshire P a trio t 1n the National I n te l1Iqencer, June 11, 1812, p. 2. 27N11es' Weekly R eg ister. May 30, 1812, p. 196. 2®John Langdon to A lbert G alla tin , M ay 30, 1812; Henry Dearborn to G alla tin , June 13, 1812, A lbert G allatin Papers, New-York H isto ri cal Society. 188 convened, Vamum again acted as chairman and Johnson as secretary . Langdon*s l e t t e r declining the nomination was read to the m eeting, and Elbrldge Gerry was selected as the new candidate, receiving 74 of 77 b a llo ts . A fter th is task had been completed, the meeting accepted Henry Clay's motion to open the flo o r to those who had fa ile d to attend the I n itia l caucus but now wished to vote fo r Madison. Ten additional b a llo ts were garnered fo r the P resident 1n th is fash io n , making a to ta l of 9 2 . The d eclaratio n o f war ag ain st England on June 18 gave the regulars additional substance to back up th e ir c a ll fo r party unity. The C llntonlans decided to launch the ship of th e ir candidate o f f ic ia lly when the N ew York le g is la tu re reconvened 1n the l a t t e r p art o f May. A c a ll was Issued fo r a meeting o f those members of the le g isla tu re opposed to the caucus tic k e t. Reports varied as to the sp ecifics of the Clinton nomination, however. One N ew Yorker wrote A lbert G allatin th a t the f i r s t gathering—near the end of M ay— consisted of about 90 persons, o f whom about 33 opposed and 57 favored declaring C lin to n 's candidacy. Another meeting was called fo r the next evening to fin a liz e the ac tio n , and approximately 80 were p resen t. The observer said th a t around 60 concurred 1n the nomination, though 30 the Clinton men reported nearly unanimous consent. Jabez Hammond 29Lanadon to John SmlUe e t a ] . , In the Natlonal Intel 11 qencer, June 11, 1812, p. 3. National In te l1Iqencer, June 9, 1812, p. 3; June 11, 1812, pp. 2-31 Thomas Jefferso n to Elbrldge Gerry (copy), June 11-13, 1812, Thomas Jefferso n Papers, Library o f Congress, Aurora, June 16, 1812, p. 2. 30L1v1ngston to G a lla tin , M ay 30, 1812, A lbert G allatin Papers, New-York H istorical Society. In sisted th a t some Republicans refused to attend th e prelim inary con clave because they opposed C linton, while c e rta in o f those who did attend doubted the expediency of any such nom ination. In h is view, the action was clinched by th e a rriv a l In Albany o f several congress men, Including P ierre Van C ortlandt, J r . , who urged putting the Empire s ta te candidate Into the f ie ld . The measure was fin a lly c a rrie d , and 31 a t a le g is la tiv e caucus a m ajority supported the ac tio n . Accounts In the Philadelphia Aurora and 1n N iles1 Weekly R eg ister, however, mention th a t 91 of 95 Republican members o f the le g is la tu re attended 32 the meeting on M ay 29 and th a t Clinton was nominated unanimously. One Albany correspondent o f the N ew York Commerlcal A dvertiser provided a slig h tly d iffe re n t rep o rt: the f i r s t le g is la tiv e caucus was held on M ay 28, followed by a second meeting attended by 83 persons on M ay 29 a t which Clinton received a unanimous nomination. N o contender was named fo r th e second o ffic e because 1t was thought best to leave th at prerogative to a d iffe re n t s ta te . Another Albany observer wrote the same journal th a t the M ay 29 meeting was nearly unanimous. A subse quent account also pointed out th a t the group adopted a resolution which expressed some opposition to the congressional nominating system 33 and appointed a committee o f correspondence. Some CUntonlans ^Hammond, The H istory of P o e tic a l P a rtie s in the S tate of N ew York (2 v o ls ., Cooperstown,New York, 1845), I , 314-16. ^A u ro ra, M ay 20, 1812, p. 2; June 2, 1812, p. 3. N ile s1 Weekly R egister, June 6, 1812, p. 235. 33Conwerc1a1 A d v ertiser, June 1, 1812, p . 2; June 3, 1812, p. 2. 190 wished fo r a sim ilar committee 1n each o f the s ta te s , and one wrote to a like-minded congressman, urging the formation o f a C11nton-for- P resldent association among the members 1n Washington with a view to organizing an activ e plan fo r the s ta te s south o f N ew York. Whatever the exact mechanics and numbers o f these conclaves, Clinton did receive the endorsement o f a su b stan tia l m ajority of the N ew York Republican le g is la to rs , and a committee was appointed to promote his e le c tio n . Some local F ed eralists were openly asse rtin g th e ir support 11 34 as w ell. N aturally, the pro-Mad1son journals took a dim view of th e nomi nation o f an Irre g u la r candidate. The National In te llig e n c e r, fo r example, said the action was unwise and might well lead to the ruin o f the p arty . They s p e c ific a lly objected because "the nomination 1s Irre g u la r, unprecedented and dangerous. W e have heretofore, by com m on consent, confided th a t power [o f nomination] to our rep resen tativ es 1n Congress, and cannot co n sisten tly withdraw th a t power but by th e mutual consent o f our s is te r s ta te s ." In ad d itio n , they asserted th a t Madison had been nominated by the approved method and hence should be the 35 Republican contender. The CUntonlans made anti-caucus a cen tral Issue o f th e ir oppo s itio n to Madison as the regular nominee, and, la te r In the campaign, the N ew York committee o f correspondence charged with working fo r the 34 P ierre Van C ortlandt, J r . , to Edmund C. Genet, June 1, 1812, Edmund C. Genet Papers, Library o f Congress. Edmund C. Genet to P ierre Van C ortlandt, J r . , June 15, 1812, Van C ortlandt Papers, N ew York Public Library* John McKinley to James Madison, June 1, 1812, James Madison Papers, Library o f Congress. 35Inte11Iqencer. June 9, 1812, p. 3. 191 Clinton cause sen t a p rin ted c irc u la r l e t t e r to many Republicans. A fter beginning the m issive with a frank evaluation th a t De W1tt Clinton was an a b le r and more su ita b le candidate fo r the n atio n 's problems, the committee concentrated on opposition to the caucus. But another cause urges us more stro n g ly than any other to appeal to you—1 t 1s one o f p rin c ip le —1t Involves a great c o n stitu tio n al question, which 1s now fo r th e f i r s t time brought f a ir ly to the t e s t . The members o f congress have nominated Madison as the next P resident. This In terferen ce In the nomination o f a P resident by a congressional caucus a t the se a t o f government, we conceive to be unwarranted by the c o n stitu tio n —a v io latio n o f i t s s p i r i t , and dangerous to the Republic! The s ta te o f Iftew York has openly re siste d th is usurpation, and by the nomination o f D e W1tt C linton, has brought the question d ire c tly before the American p e o p le .36 Thus was anti-caucus a cornerstone of the Clinton campaign stru c tu re . S hortly a f te r , In an open l e t t e r addressed to the American people, the Clinton committee expressed I ts displeasure with the congressional nomination, In sistin g th a t "the nomination of a candidate fo r the presidency. . . by an association o f members o f Congress. . . 1s h o s tile to the s p i r i t o f the federal C o n stitu tio n , dangerous to the rig h ts o f the people, and to the freedom o f e le c tio n ." The proper method o f nomination, they suggested, was by "the s ta te s which enjoy the co n stitu tio n a l rig h t to e le c t." Moreover, th e l e t t e r expressed the fe ar th a t the caucus would become so firm ly estab lish ed as to be tantamount to the e le c to ra l college: "The Congress w ill appoint the P resid en t, and the co n stitu tio n al electo rs w ill be mere o ffic e rs to re g is te r I ts e d ic ts ." Under such circum stances, a foreign nation ^Benjam in F erris e t a l. t o , August 18, 1812, D e W1tt Clinton Papers, Columbia U niversity. 192 might well be able to secure the choice o f a man frien d ly to th e ir In te re sts by bribing Congress. Of course, the le tte r could scarcely conclude w ithout v ilify in g James Madison and V irginia Influence, 37 while g lo rify in g D e W1tt Clinton. Though some of these men were no doubt sin cerely opposed to the caucus, a more r e a lis tic In te rp re- tatlo n o f the anti-caucus arguments must be expressed In terms of personal In te re s t. The group had fa ile d to choose C linton, so any attem pt to ju s tif y his candidacy would lo g ic a lly be based In large p a rt on an assertio n o f th e Impropriety o f a congressional nomination. But what o f the F e d eralists? The poor showing of th e p u ris t presid en tial tic k e t 1n 1808 put th e pragm atist faction 1n a stronger position w ithin Federal ranks fo r the canvass o f 1812. I t was obvious to the reasonable observer th a t D e W itt Clinton counted on securing the F ed eralist support h is uncle had fa ile d to obtain 1n 1808, fo r without these votes he had no hope fo r victory. To which p o litic a l siren would the m inority party lis te n : the l i l t i n g melody o f purism with I ts elu siv e promise of undiluted joy and unblemished v ic to ry , o r the more r e a lis tic re fra in of pragmatism with I ts compromise which gave pre-eminence to winning ra th e r than to p artisan Idealism? Their decision would determine whether the race would be a two-sided co n test o r a three-sided melee. Indeed, th e F ed eralist p arty was f a r from dead: th e war and other Issues would provide s u ffic ie n t Impetus to enable them almost to double th e size o f th e ir congressional troop as a re su lt o f the 37N11es' Weekly R eg ister, September 12, 1812, pp. 17-19. 193 electio n of 1812. But d id the resurgence of p arty fortunes portend s u ffic ie n t support to ris k running one o f th e ir own or should 1t be In terp reted merely as a good opportunity to combine with th e Republi can Irreg u lars to overthrow Madison? The b a ttle lin e s fo r the p u rls t- pragm atlst stru g g le w ithin Federal ranks were v isib le e a rly . O liver Wolcott, J r . , noted In A pril of 1811 th a t some o f h is p o litic a l brethren were reportedly leaning toward the support of another p o ten tial Republican d iss id e n t, John Armstrong. Wolcott d islik e d 38 th a t prospect and worked against any p ro life ra tio n o f the sentim ent. Armstrong was but a wisp soon departed, however, and the serious In tra-p a rty b a ttle would, of course, center around C linton. B y February of 1812, there were some signs th a t d esp ite Intense feelings on both sides o f th e q uestion, the party would be able to work cohe siv ely toward a common g o a l, whatever the decision turned out to be— perhaps even more e ffe c tiv e ly than the reasonably c re d ita b le degree o f unity 1n behalf o f C. C. Pinckney and Rufus King In 1808. Massa chusetts would again be f e r t i l e ground fo r pragm atist seed, and one party notable wrote from Boston about th is flow ering of the compro mise sp irit.^ ® The F ed eralists would again play a w aiting game before making th e ir decision. Thus, d esp ite an early and obvious alignment of the ^ O liv e r W olcott, J r . , to George Gibbs, April 2, 1811, O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Library o f Congress. See also Stephen Van Rensselaer to Ebenezer Foote, February 2, 1811, F ed eralist L e tte rs, U niversity o f V irginia. ^ C h risto p h er 6 ° ^ *° Rufus King, February 7, 1812, In Charles R. King, e d ., L ife and Correspondence of Rufus King (6 v o ls ., N ew York, 1894-1900). V, 256-57. William C. Preston to Francis Preston, February 10, [1812J, Campbell-Preston-Floyd Papers, Library of Congress. 194 resp ectiv e factio n al p o sitio n s, the re a lly a c tiv e p roselytizing e ffo rts began somewhat la te r 1n the campaign than the corresponding Republican nominations. I t was c le a r, though, th a t Federal e f fo r ts , esp ecially 1n the North, would use an ti-w ar, a n ti-V irg in ia , and pro-commerce arguments 1n th e ir campaign, a system of approach which could be adapted to whichever o f the two s tra te g ic paths the party ultim ately followed. As la te as the end o f April In e le c tio n year, the N ew York Evening Post published an a r tic le urging Republicans to d esert Madison and speaking against V irginia Influence—but w ithout providing a 40 sp e c ific a lte rn a tiv e candidate. In the sp rin g , th ere was some prelim inary contact between De W itt Clinton and Gouverneur M orris, a prominent N ew York F e d e ra list, 1n which the d issid en t Republican declared he favored reco n ciliatio n w ith E ngland.^ This discussion came about the same time th a t the F ed eralists achieved encouraging returns In the N ew York e le c tio n ; the Empire s ta te re su lts seemed to stim ulate general a c tiv ity In the p a rty , as even V irginia reported an u p su rg e .^ The N ew York Commercial A dvertiser of M ay 6 taunted the Republ1 cans about the outcome of the canvass: ^Evening P ost. April 29, 1812, p. 2. See also the N ew York Conmerclal A dvertiser, April 17, 1812, p. 2. 41 Morris d iary , M ay 3, 1812, Gouverneur Morris Papers, Library o f Congress. *^[Dav1d Campbell] to Alexander Sinyth, May 12, 1812, David Campbell Papers, Duke U niversity. 195 A Speculation—V te have heard th a t a person has o ffered fo r 75 cents to pay fo r a ll the so lid food which shall be consumed by Mr. Madison, and a ll his heads o f departments, the two a s s is ta n t se c re ta rie s o f war Included, during the f i r s t seven days a f te r In te llig en ce sh all reach Washington o f the re s u lt o f the . . . e lectio n In N. [ s ic ] York.43 Thus did the p a rtic ip a n ts 1n p o litic a l p re stid ig ita tio n p red ict a p o s sib ility of parlaying p a rtisa n problems Into p a ltry p ro fits . B y ea rly Ju ly , Morris sguarely faced the two primary options open to the F ed eralists—purism or pragmatism—and though he opposed making a fin a l decision a t th is tim e, Ms preference d is tin c tly leaned toward c o a litio n . Not only did he doubt the p o ssib ility o f e le c tin g a F ed eralist candidate, but he also f e l t 1t would be unwise to do so 1f they could. Some party members seemed to feel obligated to p resen t a tic k e t from th e ir own ranks, though Morris regarded th is course as merely another way to vote fo r Madison. His pen burning with th e fru s tra tio n o f an a ris to c ra t scorned, he In sisted Instead th a t: the present party [should] carry on th e ir war and, to th a t e f fe c t, lay th e ir tax es. Let a vain people w rithe under th e Tyranny o f th e ir loving frie n d s. Such Blockheads are n e ith e r worthy o f nor f i t fo r a free Government. . . . Rely on 1 t, m y dear S ir, th a t those who expect to bring men rig h t by reasoning pay an unmerited compliment to human n atu re. A nation must su ffe r severely before 1t can be reformed. Many F e d e ra lists, o f course, opposed the war and hoped fo r a peace President who would seek an end to the c o n f l i c t / 4 43Cownerc1al A d v ertiser, M ay 6, 1812, p. 2; see also the Issues fo r M ay Z, 5, 11, and 14, 1812. 44Morr1s to Charles W . Hare (copy), June 30, 1812; Morris to Robert O liv er, July 9, 1812, Gouverneur Morris Papers, Library o f Congress. N ew York Evening P ost, June 30, 1812, p. 2; July 1, 1812, p. 2. 196 July would w itness the Federal debate on purism versus pragma tism move In to high g ear. Committees o f correspondence sim ilar to those o f 1808 were again Instrumental 1n the In tra -p a rty dialogue and planning In the period before the fin al decision was made, while some Individuals a lso contributed to the e f fo r t. Several viewpoints were expressed, a ll o f which were v ariatio n s on the two e sse n tia l themes. Timothy Pickering was I llu s tr a tiv e o f the temporizing p u ris ts , those who were considerably le ss than en th u siastic about Clinton and favored a Federal candidate—1n th is case John Marshall of V irginia. I f necessary, however, Pickering would support C linton.45 Benjamin Stoddert was rep resen tativ e o f a hardier and more decisive sp ecies, Including many southerners, who were so lid p u rists In favor of a F ed eralist from th e ir se c tio n , sp e c ific a lly M arshall. Stoddert In sis te d th a t Clinton had no chance whatever—not even to win his home s ta te . M arshall, by c o n tra st, could win V irginia, he thought, plus some votes 1n North Carolina and possibly even deeper 1n the South and In the West. Clinton or Rufus King could be h is running mate, preferably th e l a t t e r . The chances o f a northern candidate winning the p resid en tial c h a ir he thought to be v irtu a lly z e ro .45 Another group o f staunch p u r is ts , Including a number of N ew York members of the p arty , were ard en tly 1n favor o f Rufus King; 1n addition to believing C lin to n 's chances s lig h t, these Empire s ta te men had spent 45P1cker1ng to Edward Pennington (copy), July 12, 1812, Timothy Pickering Papers, M assachusetts H istorical Society. 45Stoddert to James McHenry, July 15, 1812, James McHenry Papers, Library of Congress. Stoddert to Robert Goodloe Harper, September 4, 1812, Harper-Pennlngton Papers, Maryland H isto rical Society. 197 too long In opposition to the CUntonlans 1n N ew York p o litic s to be able to lend th e ir e n th u sia stic support to De W itt's bid fo r 47 the n a tio n 's highest o ffic e . The pragm atists, o f w hom Harrison Gray 0t1s was a high p r ie s t, c o n stitu ted a fourth factio n w ithin the F ed eralist ranks, and th is element ferv en tly believed th e party should coalesce w ith the Irre g u la r Republicans 1n behalf of C linton. 0t1s even In siste d —as had Gouverneur M orris, who was an exception to the N ew York p u ris t fac tio n —th a t the e lec tio n of a F ed eralist 48 to the presidency would be a disadvantage. The P hiladelphia F ed eralist leaders were, as 1n 1808, 1n the vanguard o f e ffo rts to secure a unified e ffo rt throughout the party concerning the p resid en tial co n test. In Ju ly , a meeting of deleqates from several wards 1n the c ity appointed James M llnor, Robert Wharton, Horace Blnney, and Andrew Bayard as a committee o f correspondence and conference. This committee soon wrote to Harrison Gray O tis, asking his views and those o f his Federal colleagues 1n M assachusetts. The P hiladelphia group's cu rren t a ttitu d e was c le a rly pragm atist In o rie n ta tio n —much to O tis' d elig h t—but no fin al commitment had yet been made to the CUntonlans 1n th e ir s ta te . The poor prospects for a F ed e ra list candidate and C lin to n 's reasonably p alatab le a ttitu d e s on 4 7 Rufus King memorandum, August 5, 1812, In C. R. King, L ife and Correspondence o f Rufus King, V, 270. David Hackett F ischer, TH3 Revolution o f American Conservatism: The F ed e ra list Party 1n ITie Era o f Jefferso n ian Democracy (New York, 1965), 88-89. 48 O tis to John Rutledge, J r . , July 31, 1812, John Rutledge, J r . , Papers, Southern H istorical C o llectio n , U niversity o f North C arolina. 198 the war, commerce, and re la te d p o lic ie s seemed to make him the logical contender fo r the party to support. The Pennsylvanians f e l t th a t 1f the northern F ed eralists turned to th e N ew York hopeful, th e ir p a r ti- 49 san brethren throughout the nation would do th e same. S tate com m ittees were also formed elsewhere during th e same period, notably In Massachusetts and N ew York; these groups provided a unifying 50 framework and communications network fo r the party. As In 1808, the need fo r F ed eralist consultation went beyond correspondence. A meeting o f leaders from throughout the country was again suggested, apparently In la te June or early July by some N ew England lea d e rs, though the Philadelphia committee seems to have 51 played the major ro le 1n Implementing the suggestion. Some party members—Jos 1 ah 0. Hoffhian o f N ew York, fo r example—I n itia lly re acted negatively toward th is suggestion, and even 0t1s apparently had l i t t l e enthusiasm fo r such a convocation. Both men seemed to think extensive correspondence would be s u ffic ie n t to co-ordinate the course o f the p arty , as well as experiencing some fear th a t *9M11nor, e t a l. to 0 t1 s, July 27, 1812, Harrison Gray Otis Papers, Massachusetts H istorical Society. ®®Jos1ah 0. Hofflman to O tis, Ju ly 17, 1812, In Samuel EH ot Morlson. Life and L etters o f Harrison Grav O tis, F e d eralist, 1765- 1848 (2 v o ls ., lo sto n TncTNeW'Tork7T913), 17318=17.--------- -------- 51 William Sullivan o f M assachusetts l a te r said he talked about the general situ a tio n with Calvin Goddard o f Connecticut and John Dwight o f M assachusetts. These men reportedly agreed a convention should be held In N ew York In September and no doubt mentioned the Idea to various Federal lead ers. John S. Murdock, "The F irs t National Nomination Convention," American H isto rical Review, I (Ju ly , 1896), 680-83. the convention might re s u lt In a v ictory fo r the p u rists as 1t had 52 four years previous. But the Pennsylvania committee, and perhaps o th e rs, appeared to feel the convention to be e s se n tia l, and the d isse n ters could provide no convincing reasons fo r avoiding such a conference. Thus, I t was agreed to hold th e meeting In New York beginning on September 15; the Keystone and Empire sta te corresponding committees, esp ecially , proceeded to communicate the decision to F ed eralist notables 1n the o th er s ta te s , urging th a t delegations balanced 1n terms o f geographic location and of profession be se n t. The method o f appointment and number o f rep resen tativ es were le f t to each s ta t e 's d isc re tio n . The various committees also continued th e ir e ffo rts to gather Information from the d iffe re n t geographical se c tio n s .53 During the period when the party machinery worked to s e t up the meeting where the fin a l decision would be made between the p u rists and the pragm atists, a conference was held between Clinton and some top N ew York F ederalists to a sce rtain th e ir common ground and the p o s s ib ilitie s fo r c o a litio n . In ad d itio n , near the end o f July, Clinton arranged to send some em issaries to Charles W . Hare In P h lla- 530t1s to William S u lliv an , August 17, [1812], Harrison Gray 0t1s Miscellaneous M anuscripts, N ew York Public Library. Hoffknan to O tis, July 17, 1812, In Morlson, Harrison Gray O tis, I , 316-17. 53 James Milnor e t a l . to John Stanly and William Gaston, August 13, 1812, William Gaston Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, univer s ity o f North Carolina. Jacob R adcllff e t a l . to David Daggett, August 25, 1812; Joslah 0. Hoffknan to Daggett, September 1 , 1812, David Daggett Papers, Belnecke L ibrary, Yale U niversity. 200 delphla. The d issid en t Republican candidate had a lso l e t F ed eralists know th a t he would seek Immediate peace with England 1f e le c te d . A fter the adjournment of Congress, various Clintonian members from the s ta te met with various N ew York F e d e ra lists, Including some of the co rres ponding committee, to discuss e lectio n prospects. The congressmen f e l t a Federal contender had no chance, but In siste d th a t the outlook fo r th e ir ch ief was favorable; to Improve h is p o sitio n even fu rth e r, they sought a commitment from the opposition p arty . Though no unquali fied promise was made to bind the Empire s ta te F e d e ra lists, they did te ll the Clinton men the party would support him to keep Madison o u t - 54 1f there were no chance o f e lectin g one of th e ir own. Pursuing the c o a litio n personally, Clinton l e t 1t be known th a t he opposed southern domination with I ts adverse commercial policy and Indicated to Rufus King.through a th ird party his readiness to meet d ire c tly with some F ed eralists leaders to arrange th e union. King pre sented the proposition to several colleagues, Including John Jay and Gouverneur M orris, who fin a lly prevailed upon him to agree. Jay, M orris, and King would meet w ith Clinton 1n order to consider forming a peace party In N ew York; any decision on the p resid en tial e lectio n would have to come from consensus with the o ther segments o f p arty. On August 5, Clinton went to the home o f Morris fo r the conference, but Jpy was 111, thus r e s tric tin g the meeting to three p a rtic ip a n ts. The Republican candidate said he did not d iff e r from the F ed eralists and 54 Rufus King memorandum, July 27, 1812, In C. R. King, Life and Correspondence o f Rufus King, V, 265-66. 201 was forever separated from the Madison ad m in istratio n . Despite the d eclaratio n o f common cause by the Republican Irre g u la r, King subse quently In sisted to Morris and Jay th a t few members o f the dominant party would follow Clinton In to c o a litio n w ith the F e d e ra lists. In f a c t, King serio u sly doubted whether a larg e number o f Republicans would support Clinton under any circum stances, which made c o a litio n o f l i t t l e value, and he also f e l t , 1n tru e p u ris t fashion, th a t his p arty should avoid compromising th e ir In te g rity by working with opposition party members o f any denomination. While th e F ed eralists excluded the su b ject o f the presidency from these n eg o tiatio n s, th e meeting never th e le ss bore an obvious relatio n sh ip to th a t question and served as an ex c ellen t forum fo r Clinton to seek support fo r his race against Madison. King, o f course, became more convinced than ever o f the correctness o f h is p u ris t views, and Jay also determined to refuse 55 support to the C lintonian p resid en tial e f f o r t. The N ew York d1s- 56 sld e n t did salvage M orris' good w ill, however. While Clinton was attem pting to e n tic e the N ew Yorkers Into jo in in g his camp, other F ed eralists were laboring In preparation fo r the forthcoming convention. The s ta te corresponding committees, par tic u la rly those In Philadelphia and New York, continued to work a c tiv e ly to gather Information and to secure a good attendance a t the m eeting, but various Individuals were equally d ilig e n t 1n w ritin g —and ta lk in g —to make converts to th e ir own p a rtic u la r view of th e course 55 Rufus King memoranda, July 31, August 3, 5, 7, 1812, 1n C. R. King, L ife and Correspondence o f Rufus King, V, 266-71. ® 6Morr1s to Robert O liver (copy), August 14, 1812, Gouverneur Morris Papers, Library of Congress. the party should adopt. Two o f the four F ed eralists factio n s appear to have been represented more thoroughly than the others 1n th is propaganda e ffo rt. Benjamin Stoddert was the principal protagonist fo r the southern p u ris t p o sitio n . He wrote le tte r s by the score to convince various party leaders th at the only way to beat Madison was to run John M arshall, thus fig h tin g the V irginia Republican w ith another V irginian. Stoddert In sisted th a t the party must "re ta in th e ir honorable prin cip les" and th a t he "would not save the country by v ile means. . . . le t F ed eralists s t i l l preserve th e ir In te g rity ." At one p o in t, he s a rc a s tic a lly adm itted th a t Clinton should be run 1f the N ew Yorker's chances were b e st, but his purism 1s strongly demonstrated by the v itrio l 1n the remark th a t 1f the d issid en t Republican were supported "1t w ill be on the same kind of p rin c ip le , th a t a naked man would rush out of a house on f ir e above his e a rs, a lth o ' [sic ] he was sure o f meeting a mad Dog a t the Door." Stoddert a ctu ally had a minor pragmatic streak —as did some who agreed with him—because he believed Clinton had no chance to win; 1n his view, Marshall was the only can didate who could be ca rried to victory by the p arty. Moreover, Clinton had been a b itte r foe o f the F e d e ra lists, and there was no assurance th a t he would seek peace even 1f elected ; the party should try Instead to obtain the aid o f the anti-Madison Republicans by o fferin g Clinton the vice-presidency. Despite his p ro lific e f fo r ts , Stoddert apparent ly made few p o litic a l p ro sely tes to jo in In his crusade, and uncom promising purism remained the dominant s tra in 1n his p o litic a l 203 outlook. Harrison Gray 0t1s performed as th e ch ief pragm atist ap o stle; he believed th a t the p a rty 's main goal should be to change the adminis tra tio n 1n order to make peace and to b en efit commerce. But even th is high p r ie s t o f pragmatism had some d o c trin a ire facets 1n his thinking: he opposed the e lectio n o f a F e d e ra list—even I f I t were po ssib le—as something to be avoided under the cu rren t circum s ta n c e s .^ The Philadelphia committee also did some a c tiv e , though considerably less dogmatic, campaigning fo r the pragm atist viewpoint. They leaned toward Clinton because o f th e poor prospects of e lec tin g one o f th e ir own party and f e l t th a t he possessed q u a litie s and would pursue p o licie s which were reasonably co n sisten t with F ed eralist goals.® 9 By c o n tra st, the New York committee appears to have larg ely re s tric te d I ts a c tiv itie s to seeking Information and to acting In behalf of the scheduled convention.60 Stoddert to James McHenry, July 16, 1812, James McHenry Papers, Library o f Congress. Stoddert to O liver W olcott, J r . , August 1, 1812; Wolcott to S toddert, August 24, 1812, O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Connecticut H isto rical Society. Stoddert to Robert Goodloe Harper, August 31, September 1, 4 , 14, 1812; Harper to S toddert, September 10, 1812, Harper-Pennlngton Papers, Maryland H isto rical Society. 580t1s to John Rutledge, J r . , July 31, 1812, John Rutledge, J r . , Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity of North C arolina. 59James Mllnor e t a l . to 0 t1 s, Ju ly 27, 1812, Harrison Gray 0t1s Papers, M assachusetts H isto ric al Society. Mllnor e t a l . to Joseph P o rter, August 10, 1812; Mllnor e t a l . to John Stanly' and William Gaston, August 13, 1812; Jacob R ad cllff e t a l . to Gaston, August 25, 1812, William Gaston Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. 60Jacob R adcllff e t a l . to David Daggett, August 25, 1812; Joslah 0. Hofftaan to Daggett, September 1, 1812, David Daggett Papers, Belnecke L ibrary, Yale U niversity. As convention time approached, many F ed eralists no doubt p referred nominating one o f th e ir own to run against Madison 1f there Mere reasonable prospects fo r success, but the foreboding nature of the probable ele c to ra l conditions—esp ecially when viewed through the failu re-co lo red glasses o f 1808—d e fin ite ly s e t the current running In favor o f accepting the pragm atist argument supporting Clinton as less objectionable than the Incum bent.^ O tis was asked to be a rep resen tativ e to the convention b u t—perhaps remembering his unheeded c rie s In the previous e lec tio n —f la tly refused to go unless the Massachusetts delegation went s p e c ific a lly to promote C linton's nomination. His condition was s a tis fie d , and a growing portion of oth er F ed eralist opinion was also moving toward O tis' candidate during September.62 By c o n tra st, a few o f the In tran sig en t p u rists even thought of running John Jay or Bushrod Washington, but such suggestions were received as coldly as the names of M arshall, Charles C. Pinckney, or Rufus King. Washington declined becoming a contender and cast his lo t w ith those fo r Clinton. Pinckney even helped slam the door on any southern F ed eralist by w riting Philadelphia leaders th a t no man from his sectio n would stand a chance. Though he would be happy to see the party run King o r Jay, Pinckney urged th a t the Republican who would 6^011ver W olcott, J r . , to Benjamin S toddert, August 24, 1812, O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Connecticut H isto rical Society. Gouverneur Morris to Robert O liver (copy), August 14, 1812; Morris to Benjamin Morgan (copy), August 20, 1812, Gouverneur Morris Papers, Library o f Congress. 620t1s to William S ullivan, August 17, [1812], Harrison Gray Otis Miscellaneous M anuscripts, N ew York Public Library. 205 give appropriate assurances on peace, commerce, and other c r itic a l p o lic ie s should be supported 1f th ere seemed to be no chance fo r a F e d e ra list hopeful. In the words o f another pragmatic party member: " I f these objects can be obtained by a c o a litio n with a portion of the opposition p a rty , why should pride o r passion prevent 1t?"63 The odds thus c le arly favored a nomination o f Clinton when the delegates convened In N ew York on September 15. This meeting was more widely attended than the convention four years before: N ew Hampshire, M assachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Islan d , C onnecticut, N ew York, N ew J e r sey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina sent a to ta l o f almost 70 rep resen tativ es. Among the more prominent leaders present were Harrison Gray 0 t1 s, William Sul11van, and Theodore Sedgwick of M assachusetts; Joslah 0. Hoffman, Rufus King, Gouverneur M orris, P eter A. Jay , and David B. Ogden o f N ew York; Horace Blnney, Joseph Hopklnson, and William Meredith o f Pennsylvania; EUas Boudlnot of N ew Jersey ; Robert Goodloe Harper o f Maryland; and John Rutledge, J r . , o f South C arolina. Considerable time was consumed 1n hearing reports from the various s ta te delegations regarding the prospects fo r e lectin g a F e d eralist contender. L etters from p arty leaders In North Carolina and V irginia were also read to the group, as well as m issives from o th er absent n o tab les, both pragm atist and p u ris t. The l e tte r from Charles C. Pinckney to the Philadelphia s tr a te g is ts , fo r example, 63P1nckney to John B. Wallace e t a l . , August 24, 1812, Pinckney Family Papers, Library of Congress. Samuel Dexter to O tis, September 12, 1812, In Morlson, Harrison Gray O tis, I . 319. Robert Goodloe Harper to Benjamin S toddert, SeptemberTO, 1812; Harper to John H. Thomas, September 10, 1812, Harper-Pennlngton Papers, Maryland H isto rical Society. disheartened the p u ris ts —esp ecially those who favored John Marshall — by In s is tin g , as already mentioned, th a t no southern F ed eralist should be nominated and by leaning toward co a litio n with a Republican who would follow favorable p o lic ie s. A fter much negative response had been presented, Robert Goodloe Harper In itia te d a reso lu tio n th a t 1t was Inexpedient to nominate a member o f th e ir own p arty . The measure was adopted on September 16, thereby opening the way for the final th ru s t of the ardent pragm atists: a proposal to nominate C linton. A so lid m ajority o f the delegates seemed to be 1n agreement with th is sugges tio n —some o f them, esp ecially various New Yorkers, with considerable reluctance—but no o ffic ia l vote was taken. Several proposals along th is lin e were, In fa c t, o ffered , and I t was fin a lly decided to re fe r the d iffe re n t d ra fts to a committee composed o f one delegate from each s ta te . This ad hoc committee presented I ts rep o rt on September 17, urging th a t the F ed eralists support candidates fo r President and Vice- P resident who would be lik e ly to follow p o lic ie s d iffe re n t from M adison's. A second resolution 1n the rep o rt provided th a t a committee of fiv e o f the Pennsylvania delegates be appointed to learn the re su lts of the choice of electo rs 1n the various s ta te s and whom these electo rs would support; the co llected Information was then to be disseminated to frien d ly e lec to rs throughout the nation to co-ordinate th e ir efforts.® ^ MRufus King memorandum on the F e d eralist convention, September 15-17, 1812, Rufus King Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. P eter A. Jay to John Jay, September 17, 1812, John Jay Papers, Columbia U niversity. Pinckney to John B. Wallace e t a l . , August 24, 1812, Pinckney Family Papers, Library o f Congress. Davll B. Ogden to William Gaston, September 21, 1812, William Gaston Papers, Southern H istorical C o llectio n , U niversity of North C arolina. Horace Blnney e t a l . to Daniel Webster (ty p e sc rip t), September 21, 1812, Daniel Webster Papers, 207 Only two speeches were made regarding the cen tral question, and they represented the two primary p o sitio n s—purism and pragm atism - held by the convention members. Having opposed th e reso lu tio n th a t 1t was Inexpedient to nominate a F ed eralist, Rufus King again spoke earn estly In behalf o f the p u ris t m inority, In sistin g th a t the reso lution was wrong because 1t "did not speak out and name the person, w hom every one had 1n view, and because there was no evidence exhibited th at Mr. C linton, with the aid o f the fe d e ra lis ts , can be e lec te d , and, I f e le c te d , th a t he w ill pursue a b e tte r system than th a t o f Mr. Madi son." Indeed, King believed th ere was only one hope fo r reform: "Offer a federal candidate fo r th e Presidency; acquiesce 1n Mr. Madison's re -e le c tio n . H e cannot 1n four years ru in the Country; but . . . unless Peace be made, he w ill 1n th a t time so d isg u st and degrade 1 t, th a t the fe d e ra lis ts a t I ts expiration w ill come Into possession Library of Congress. Robert Goodloe Harper to ------- , September 25, 1812, Robert Goodloe Harper Papers, Library of Congress. John Steele to Joseph Pearson, August 31, 1812; Benjamin Stoddert to S te e le , September 3, 1812, In Henry M . W agstaff, The Papers of John S teele (2 v o ls ., Raleigh, North C arolina, 1924), I I , 679-85. F ischer, The Revolution of American Conservatism, 87-90. Murdock, "The F1r57 National Nominating C onvention/ 660-83. Other delegates a t the convention Included Thomas W . Thompson of N ew Hampshire, Isra e l Thorndike of M assachusetts, George T lbblts of N ew York, and Samuel Sltgreaves and Thomas Duncan o f Pennsylvania. Members probably 1n attendance were John Noyes and Chauncey Langdon o f Vermont; Timothy Bigelow of M assachusetts; Benjamin Hazard of Rhode Island; Barent G ardlnler, William Coleman, and Caleb S. Riggs of N ew York; David Daggett, Theodore Dwight, Calvin Goddard, and Samuel W . Dana of Connecticut; William G riffith and Richard Stockton o f N ew Jersey; and A. Hanson o f Maryland. Murdock, w ithout giving his sources, l i s t s the numerical to ta l as follow s: Vermont, 2; N ew Hampshire, 2; M assachusetts, 8; Rhode Islan d , 3; N ew York, 18; Connecticut, 6; N ew Jersey , 12; Pennsylvania, 12; Maryland, 3; Delaware, 2; and South C arolina, 4. The delegates were chosen by th e party leaders by means of various methods. 208 o f the Government. . . . " The pragm atist was ably represented by the oratory o f Harrison Gray O tis, who had not journeyed to the con vention to see defeat snatched from the jaws o f v icto ry . He no doubt e ffe c tiv e ly expounded the c o a litio n strateg y o f which he was the leading exponent, pointing to the u tte rly dismal chances o f electin g one o f th e ir own men and making a favorable case fo r C linton, who— he had been assured 1n July and probably during the convention—would walk a p o litic a l road th a t would seem to be composed of Ozlan yellow bricks when compared to Madison's p artisan odyssey. The vote was nearly unanimous In favor o f the committee's recommendations. While the reso lu tio n s f e ll sh o rt o f an o ffic ia l nom ination, most of the delegates fu lly understood th a t, 1n the language o f P eter A. Jay, the measures were "meant to recommend Mr. Clinton without saying so; le s t h is open nominations by the fe d e ra lis ts should lessen his Influence w ith the Pennsylvania Democrats." In fa c t, open co alitio n with the opposition party could have hurt Clinton with the Republicans 1n various a re a s, so the le ss obvious course was to be p referred . A ctually, th e more su b tle approach offered additional dividends to the F e d e ra lists: as Robert Goodloe Harper la te r noted, the party was not committed to Clinton and one of th e ir own candidates could be brought forward 1f th e ir c o a litio n partner fo r some reason appeared to be reneging on h is assurances. The convention concluded Its business w ith the naming o f the Pennsylvania com m ittee.65 65 Peter A. Jay to John Jay, September 17, 1812, John Jay Papers, Columbia U niversity. Rufus King memorandun on the F ed eralist conven tio n , September 15-17, 1812, Rufus King Papers, New-York H istorical Society. David B. Ogden to William Gaston. September 21, 1812, William Gaston Papers, Southern H istorical C ollection, U niversity o f North The F ed e ra list party g enerally accepted—some of them with relu ctan ce—the decision reached In the convention, and the quasi coal 1t1on w ith peace Republicans was, In e f fe c t, fin a liz e d . William P resco tt s ta te d a sentiment which was no doubt common among the less e n th u sia stic pragm atists: "The p ric e we must pay Is g re a t—a temporary asso ciatio n with democracy! But we have l e f t us only a choice of e v ils . I f Madison should be re-elected we have too good assurance th a t the country w ill be plunged In unfathomable m isery." Though I n itia lly unw illing to surrender his p u ris t p o sitio n , Rufus King u ltim ately decided to go with the mainstream of the party 1n supporting Clinton. So, a t le a s t, reported fellow N ew Yorker David B. Ogden In October of electio n y e a r.66 The sp e cific means of Implementing the arrangement varied from s ta te to s ta te according to p o litic a l conditions, but the F ed eralists larg ely avoided both mentioning the party conclave and declaring openly fo r Clinton le s t th e ir support be used against him by reg u lar Republicans. Often the "peace and commerce" e le c to ra l tic k e ts were composed of both F ed eralists and C U ntonlans.6^ The word of the September convention and the course of th e party Inevitably became C arolina. F ischer, The Revolution of American Conservatism, 87-90. 66P resco tt to Theodore Sedgwick, September 28, 1812, Theodore Sedgwick Papers Massachusetts H istorical S ociety. Ogden to William M eredith, October 15, 1812, Meredith Papers, H istorical Society of Pennsylvania. 6^Jos1ah 0. Hoffman to John Rutledge, J r . , October 17, 1812, John Rutledge, J r . , Papers, Southern H istorical C ollection, U niversity o f North C arolina. William Polk to William Gaston, September 26, 1812; John Devereux to Gaston, October 14, 21, 1812; John B. Wallace to Gaston, October 19, 1812; David B. Ogden to Gaston, October 31, 1812, William Gaston Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity of North C arolina. N ew York Evening P ost, October 28, 1812, p. 2. known to the Madisonian Republicans, and they did th e ir best to brand Clinton as a complete p o litic a l a p o sta te .68 Robert Goodloe Harper came to the aid o f the N ew Yorker by In sis tin g In a published l e t t e r th a t Clinton had not declared he desired separation from h is own p arty and th a t the F ed eralist gathering to consider nominations had made no o ffic ia l commitment to any candidate. Harper did admit th a t the delegates preferred C linton, however, but denied the alleg atio n o f any meeting with him. O tis and Gouverneur Morris also wrote le tte r s to defend C linton.69 The a llia n c e was strengthened, moreover, when In e arly f a ll a Pennsylvania convention favorable to Clinton named a F ed eralist o f th a t s ta te , Jared In g e rso ll, as the candidate fo r Vice- P resident; general acceptance of th is nomination helped to cement the two major wings of the anti-Madison movement. E a rlie r e ffo rts by North Carolina F ed eralists to secure an acceptable Republican vice-presiden ti a l candidate to provide some geographical balance fo r Clinton caused them to sound out Nathaniel Macon and Governor William Hawkins, both North C arolinians, though w ithout success. Then some N ew York t a c t i cians turned to ex-Govemor David Stone, also of North C arolina, again receiving no encouragement. The fin a l choice of Ingersoll no doubt made many F ed eralists seem more comfortable In th e ir arrangement to 68John Tyler to Joseph H. Nicholson, October 24, 1812, Joseph H. Nicholson Papers, Library o f Conqress. National In te l11qencer, October 3, 1812, p. 3. 69Co1umbian Centlnel (Boston), October 14, 1812, p. 1. N ew York Commercial A dvertiser, September 22, 1812, p. 2; October 21, 1812, p. 3; October 23, 1812, p. 3; October 30, 1812, p. 2; November 11, 1812, p. 2; November 19, 1812, p. 3. National In te llig e n c e r, October 3, 1812, p. 3; November 10, 1812, p. 2. 211 support C linton, and 1 t met the te s t o f nominating a candidate from e ith e r North Carolina o r Pennsylvania, s ta te s judged c r itic a l to the ultim ate re s u lt of the canvass. Despite a few bumps, the decision of the F ed eralist convention was ra th e r e ffe c tiv e ly tra n sla te d Into a c tio n .70 Some F e d e ra lists, o f course, were unwilling to reconcile them selves to the convention decision to supply de facto support to Clinton. Toward the end o f September, a party convention representing 18 counties met In Staunton, V irginia, and nominated a p u ris t tic k e t of N ew Yorker Rufus King and William R. Davie o f North C aro lin a.7^ A few notable party leaders In the East were also disappointed 1n the Clinton arrangement. O liver Wolcott, J r . , expressed h is d isp leasu re, In sistin g th a t the "old federal Party Is e x tin c t." 7* Theodore Sedgwick demonstrated h is d is tre s s with the compromise by w riting an a r tic le against Clinton which pragm atist 0t1s branded as the "most 7 1 In ju d icio u s, 111 timed production th a t I ever saw." A n In tran sig en t 70Ebenezer Baldwin to Simeon Baldwin, November 22-23, 1812, Baldwin Family Papers, S terlin g L ibrary, Yale U niversity. Thomas P. Ives to David Daggett, November 25, 1812, David Daggett Papers, Belnecke L ib rary , Yale U niversity. Aurora, October 19, 1812. p. 2. Irving B rant, James Madison: Commander in C hief, 1812-1836 (Indiana p o lis and N ew Vork, 1961), 1d6. 71National In te llig e n c e r, October 10, 1812, p. 3. The Enquirer (Richmond), October 9, 1812, p. 3; November 10, 1812, p. 7! N ew York Commercial A d v ertiser, October 3, 1812, p. 3. 7*Wolcott to George Gibbs, November 7, 1812, O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Library o f Congress. 7^Harr1son Gray O tis to -------, October 23, 1812, Harrison Gray 0t1s Miscellaneous M anuscripts, N ew York Public L ibrary. 212 p u ris t d etracted from the e ffo rt a t party unity by anonymously publishing a pamphlet condemning both Clinton and the p o litic a l m arriage—a t le a s t engagement—to the Irre g u la r Republicans. The F ed e ra list party members were "disgraced and ruined" by th is arrangement, "fo r 1t 1s founded on an abandonment of p rin c ip le , 74 [and] 1t 1s cemented by In trig u e." In ad d itio n , a few F ederalists were confused about the precise nature of the convention arrangement, thinking th a t th e ir e lec to ra l votes were to be c ast fo r the Irreg u lar Republican candidate only 1f he could win. W hen 1 t began to appear th a t Clinton would f a ll sh o rt of a m ajority, there was considerable ta lk th a t Connecticut F ed eralist e le c to rs might refuse to vote fo r him. Two p a rtic ip a n ts 1n the Federal convention wrote to th a t s ta te to urge compliance with the convention agreement to support the N ew Yorker.75 During the summer and f a l l , meanwhile, the reg u lar Republicans had spent th e ir time 1n attempts to strengthen the caucus nomination In public opinion, while a t the same time working ag ain st the Clinton candidacy. One p ro fita b le avenue was In stim ulating additional s ta te nominations of Madison and Gerry. A Republican gathering 1n Rhode W ash in g to n to the People o f the United S tates on the Choice of a P resid en t (Boston, 1812), 3-4. ^Abraham Shepherd to Timothy Pickering, October 4 , 1812, Timothy Pickering Papers, Massachusetts H isto rical Society. Thomas W . Thompson to William Meredith, October 12, 1812, Meredith Papers, H isto rical Society of Pennsylvania. Robert Walker to Duncan Cameron, October 22, 1812, Cameron Family Papers, Southern H isto rical Collec tio n , U niversity of North Carolina. George T1bb1ts to O tis, October 22, 1812, Harrison Gray O tis Papers, Massachusetts H isto rical Society. Joslah 0. Hoffman and David B. Ogden to David Daggett, November 29, 1812, David Daggett Papers, Belnecke L ibrary, Yale U niversity. 213 Island composed of le g is la to rs and special delegates met In early July; th e group unanimously approved the caucus se le c tio n s. About mid-month, a meeting o f rep resen tativ es o f the various counties In N ew Jersey acted In a sim ilar fashion. Some county conventions were held 1n some areas as w ell, with much the same r e s u lt. By mid-October the caucus nominees had been approved, d ire c tly o r In d ire c tly , by the Republicans In the le g isla tu re s o f Pennsylvania, V irg in ia, M assachusetts, N ew Hampshire, Kentucky, Ohio, N ew Jersey , and Maryland—though not a ll those s ta te s would u ltim ately fin is h 1n the Madison column. By urging th e propriety o f the congressional nominations, moreover, various Republican newspapers and committees made an e f fo r t to counteract the anti-caucus opinion emanating from the opposition ranks. The regulars also an ticip ated the F ed eralist decision to support Clinton and used th e prospect o f such an arrangement against both factions In advance o f, as well as a f te r , the September convention. Indeed, some were frightened away from Clinton because o f his F ed eralist support.^6 One Clinton backer sought to prevent such defections by a pamphlet ju s tify in g his c h ie f's views and In sistin g th a t F ed eralist support ^ N atio n al In te llig e n c e r, July 25, 1812, p. 2; August 4 , 1812, p. 1; October lb , 181Z, pp. 1-2; October 17, 1812, p. 21; October 20, 1812, p. 2; October 22, 1812, p. 3; October 24, 1812, p. 2; November 3, 1812, p. 2. Aurora, August 13, 1812, p. 2; Septeiifcer 15, 1812, p. 2; September 24, ls i2 , p. 2; October 9, 1812, p. 2; October 13, 1812, p. 2; October 23, 1812, p .2; October 29, 1812, p. 2. Wilson Cary Nicholas to --------, October 27, 1812, Wilson Cary Nicholas Papers, Library o f Congress. Reports o f c o a litio n between the F ed eralists and the CUntonlans were used with a la c rity by regular Republicans, who accused the N ew York d issid en t candidate o f high treaso n , p o litic a l s ty le . 214 should not d e te r anti-Madison Republicans.77 Another method o f attack used by Madlsonlans upon the C lintonian q u asi-co alitio n consisted o f enumerating the various—and seemingly Incongruous—segments th a t composed the movement and o f suggesting th a t the opposition had no s e ttle d policy on the peace q u estio n , the central Issue o f the campaign. Indeed, 1n order to reach as broad an audience as p o ssib le, the Clinton p o sitio n outside New England was considerably more hawkish; Madison, conversely, hoped to a ttr a c t some of the doves of 1812 by In sistin g a vigorous e ffo rt would bring an early peace with honor. One c r itic a l paper, the N ew York Public A dvertiser, accused the Clinton forces o f attem pting to be on both sides o f the fence: "All fish 1s not caught with the same b a it. By throwing out d iffe re n t lu re s, they expect fin a lly to get the whole Into one n e t." 78 The Philadelphia Aurora printed an amusing e lectio n s k it to suggest the same Inconsistency: ELECTIO N SC E N E D R A M A T IS PERSO N A E: A peace p arty man. A F e d e ra list. A Republican C lintonian. A Democrat. Peace p arty man. —Mr. C lin to n 's claims to the presidency are very strong, fit th is period, we must have peace made Immediate ly ; and I am authorized to say, th a t th e e le c tio n of Clinton would d ire c tly lead to i t . 77"A True Republican," Jefferson Against Madison's War (n .p ., [1812]), 10-20. 78Publ1c A dvertiser 1n the National In te llig e n c e r, October 15, 1812, p / T Brant, James Madison: Commander In Chief*, 102-3, 110. 215 Republican C lintonian. —Zounds, you d o n 't mean peace, without reparation of our wrongs. You've mistook the m atter alto g eth er. I am authorized to say, th a t on the e le c tio n of C linton, the war w ill be c a rried on with vigor and e f f e c t. The war 1s Ju st and necessary; but we must have Clinton to manage I t . P. P. Man. —Ay, ay, you may believe th a t. He would manage I t w ith a vengeance. 10 le t you, m y frie n d , a l i t t l e Into the s e c re t; th a t ta lk o f C lin to n 's war ta le n ts 1s a mere gull tra p , to catch such o f the war-hawks as may be necessary to carry our p o in t. P olicy, you know, Is allowable In a ll cases. I te ll you D e W1tt 1s pledged to procure Immediate peace. Republ 1 can Cl 1 n . —And I te ll you, you w ill find out a t your le is u re , 1 1 WhoJs the dupe?" The gull trap was s e t to catch blin d er birds than we, 1 can assure you. De W1tt knows the war Is proper, and w ill prosecute 1 t to e ffe c t. Fed.—I apprehend you are m istaken, s i r . The tru e ground on which Mr. Clinton 1s e n title d to support, Is th a t he w ill re sto re the Washington or federal p o licy . I t 1s some s a c rific e o f our p rid e , to be su re, to coalesce with you; but the end ju s tif ie s the means. Our friends have made advantageous terms with Mr. C linton; and you undoubtedly w ill be tre a te d as well as the u lte r io r scope of our policy w ill perm it. P. P. M an and C lin, (to g eth er)—Your policy forsooth—a m iserable dwindling gang—a mere make w eight, to change the balance— a s e t o f blundering co n sp irato rs, who have lo s t a ll chance for popular confidence, except by the most ridiculous sh o rt lived schemes o f delusion—a s e t of ty ra n n ic al, usurping p lo ttin g — Democrat. —Hush, gentlemen, hush!—"Pause, pause, fo r Heaven' s sake pause 1" as Govemeur Morris says! These e b u llitio n s of passion are extremely n a tu ra l, when you endeavor to mix discord ant m a te ria ls .—Pray, give over the hopeless process. Mr. Cl 1 n- ton form erly commanded a f a ir portion of respect fo r his ta le n ts an? p o litic a l orthodoxy. To you, Mr. F e d e ra list, no man was more obnoxious. Has he made p rlv ate avowals of~hav1ng changed his sentim ents? Then he 1s a hypocrite and deceiver. Has he made no such pledges? Then you are the most debased and grovel lin g o f sycophants, to lic k the s p ittle of a man, who has denounced you as treasonable co n sp lrato rs1 By you, gentlemen, th is man was respected, not more than by m yself. I admired h is general ta le n ts —I admired his able and Industrious d is charge o f the d u ties o f mayor o f N. York. I admired his reputed humanity o f temper and amenity of manners.—I had a propossession In his favor, strong as ny ardent attachment to the ch aracter o f his venerated uncle. But, I found the papers In his support suffused with the most malignant abuse of the b e st men. I found him supported by the fe d e ra lis ts ; and jo in in g the p riv a te c o te rie of the friends o f P1[c]ker1ng and with Gouverneur M orris, I found agents swarming th ro ' the country, preaching to one th a t he was a peace man; to another 216 he was an e f fic ie n t wan to manage war; ju stify in g a disgraced commander, th a t they wight c ast censure on the adm inistration. Pardon m e a l i t t l e longer. D o you not see how to ta lly opposed are h is claims to the confidence of you severally? He cannot reconcile co n trad ictio n s. He cannot have war and peace a t the same tim e. He cannot pursue the pol1cy~wFlch each of you are taught to expect as the consequence o f his elev atio n ; fo r the simple reason, th a t he cannot perform Im p o ssib ilitie s. For one, I t e l l you p la in ly , I always did d etest d u p lic ity as the most dangerous enemy o f a republic. I f the f i r s t o ffic e In America Is to be a mere m atter of b a rte r, management, o r exchange, the people had b e tte r a t once make 1 t h [e]red 1 tary . I would In fin ite ly ra th e r know ny situ a tio n In a monarchy; than ta lk o f a rep u b lic, and liv e under a managing oligarchy. I would p re fe r—[Here the fe d e ra lis t ana h is two a l l i e s , moved o ff—and l e f t the long- winded democrat, to th in k , Instead o f talk in g .]7 9 The Clinton adherents might well have wished fo r th a t quotable aphorism o f th e as yet u n lettere d Ralph Waldo Emerson: "Foolish consistency Is th e hob-gobl1n o f small minds." But the a<ta1n1strati on Republicans went even beyond these variegated ta c tic s o f opposition to the d issid en t candidates by extending the hand o f c o n cilia tio n as well as the f i s t of p o litic a l war. In the l a t t e r p a rt o f September, some Madison men 1n upper N ew York s ta te apparently se n t a l e t t e r and a personal rep resen tativ e, General William King, to Richard Rlker, a Clinton campaign manager, 1n New York C ity, urging th a t the d issid en t Republican candidate should withdraw from the p resid en tial sweepstakes. Both the l e t t e r and King sought to appeal to C lin to n 's long-term prospects: to continue against the regular nominee In 1812 would supposedly decimate the N ew Yorker's fu tu re chances, while stepping aside 1n 1812 1n favor ^A urora, October 13, 1812, p. 2. 217 o f party unity should re s u lt In considerable support fo r him la te r on, possibly 1n 1816. The Clinton men reported th a t the support of Massachusetts regulars fo r the N ew Yorker 1n 1816 was a p a rt of the o ffe r, though such an In te rp retatio n appears to have stretch ed the tru th . A fter reading the le tte r and meeting with King, R1ker d is cussed the proposals w ith several o f the can d id ate's clo se friends and wrote an answer 1n the form of a vigorous negative. The Cllntonlans published both sides o f the correspondence In an attempt to portray the Madison s tra te g is ts as purveyors of shabby p o litic a l bargains: not ex actly blameless themselves when 1t came to partisan maneuvering behind the scenes, the Irre g u la r Republicans s e lf- rlghteously In siste d th a t they refused to lis te n to any o ffe r which committed some e le c to rs 1n the next campaign. Copies of the le tte r to the Clinton forces were probably d istrib u te d 1n several s ta te s , on esp ecially Pennsylvania. The e f fo r t to squeeze Clinton out of the 81 game also Included d ire c t correspondence to him. Clinton refused to be squeezed, however, and remained In the contest to the end. Despite some defections from his somewhat Incongruous admixture o f backers, the q u a si-c o a litio n held together rath e r w ell. In the choice of electo rs by the N ew York le g is la tu re , on N ew York Commercial A dvertiser, October 21, 1812, p. 3; October 22, 1812, p. 2. Columbian"Sentinel, October 21, 1812, p. 2. ®^"Your Friend" to De W1tt C linton, November 28, 1812, D e W itt Clinton Papers, Columbia U niversity. 218 fo r example, enough F ed eralists gave th e ir votes to the Clinton tic k e t 09 to bring I t 1n f i r s t . In f a c t, Martin Van Buren, C lin to n 's In v eter a te Republican opponent In la te r y e a rs, a ctiv ely supported the N ew 83 York candidate In 1812, though subsequently re g rettin g 1 t. Even 1n the southern s ta te o f North C arolina, the Federal party worked vigorously fo r C linton, though w ithout success. As la te as the end of November, one Empire s ta te observer thought his fav o rite would beat Madison.84 Despite the loss o f nearly a ll N ew England and several of the middle s ta te s , the caucus nominee defeated Clinton by the compara tiv e ly close e le c to ra l college ta lly o f 128-89. Elbrldge Gerry, the reg u lar candidate fo r the vice-presidency, received only th ree more e le c to ra l votes than Madison, which also t e s tif ie s to the re la tiv e cohesiveness o f the q u asi-co alitio n fo rces. The congressional nomina tin g system had barely weathered the storm produced by the combination 85 o f Irre g u la r Republicans and pragmatic F e d e ra lists. 8^Robert T lllotson to A lbert G a lla tin , November 9, 1812, A lbert G allatin Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. 83Van Buren autobiography ( d r a f t) , Martin Van Buren Papers, Library o f Congress. 84W1111am P. Van Ness to C. P. Van Ness, November 26, 1812, William P. Van Ness Papers, N ew York Public Library. 85New-York Commercial A d v ertiser, February 13, 1813, p. 2. David H. Fischer suggests th a t the F ed eralist support o f Clinton was an unfortunate course and seems to Imply th a t one o f th e ir own can didates might well have done b e tte r In view o f the N ew Y orker's fa ilu re to carry as many s ta te s as th e party won on the le g is la tiv e and gubernatorial le v e l. Though le ss obviously, Marshall Smelser, who draws heavily on Fischer, appears to agree. I would take Issue with any such notion, believing ra th e r th a t the Implementation o f the pragm atist plan came nearer beating Madison than a p u ris t course would have. I t seems to me th a t congressional elec tio n s are more closely re la te d to the p resid en tial vote than are those on the s ta te and local 219 le v e ls. In 1808, C. C. Pinckney ran behind the r e s t o f the party when computed on the basis o f those elected to Congress: he to ta led 47 e le c to ra l votes compared to 54 F ed eralists (48 In the House) chosen fo r the national le g is la tu re . In 1812, however, Clinton ran ahead o f F ed eralists named to Congress, 89-77 (68 1n the House). See F ischer, Revol u t 1 on ofAm erl can Conservat 1 sm, 90; Smelser, The Democratic hepubllc, 1801-1815 (New York, Evanston, and London, 1968), CHAPTER IV T H E C O N G R E SSIO N A L N O M IN A T IN G C A U C U S O F 1816: T H E S T R U G G L E A G A IN ST T H E VIRGINIA D Y N A S T Y The e le ctio n of 1816 was to w itness the continuation of the V irginia dynasty and the daybreak o f the "Era o f Good Feelings" (misnamed though 1 t was). Yet the situ a tio n could have been d iffe re n t on both counts. At the crux o f the m atter lay the congressional nominating caucus: F ed eralist weakness on th e national scene held a promise o f success fo r the Republican nominee. Previous caucuses had experienced l i t t l e d iffic u lty 1n se le c tin g the p resid en tial can d id a te , fo r the choice 1n each Instance was a foregone conclusion. Though attacked by supporters o f factio n al contenders 1n 1808 and 1812, the congressional conclave was larg ely boycotted by the d issid e n ts, thus allowing the Republican m ajority to nominate th e ir candidates by a nearly unanimous vote. But the caucus o f 1816 faced another prospect: fo r the f i r s t —and l a s t —tim e, 1t was to be a tru e battleground, w ith re su lts th a t Indicated the closeness o f the stru g g le. Speculation about Madison's successor began ra th e r e arly . The a tte n tio n given to the p resid en tial question by congressmen during the war became so d istra c tin g th a t Monroe, as he to ld John Quincy Adams, asked some o f his close friends to remove h is name 220 221 from consideration pending the end o f the c o n flic t. Such a step c e rta in ly fa ile d to h a lt the Monroe movement, however, and the con clusion o f the war ended th e reason fo r such a plan. Nathaniel Macon noted the s tir r in g o f p resid en tial fevers w ith some d isg u st, but his observation foreshadowed the sig n ific a n t opposition to continuing the V irginia dynasty: The shy hogs are I fe a r already turning th e ir a tte n tio n too much toward the next P resid en tial e lectio n [ . ] I t begins to be frequently said th a t Col. Monroe ought to be the man, th a t Governor Tompkins Is a proper person, and M inister Adams 1s well q u a lifie d fo r the place, and th a t h is electio n would be more agreeable to the Eastern s ta te s than e ith e r o f the others . . . N o one could be more disagreeable to them than Col. Monroe.1 Even some southerners were becoming jealous o f V irg in ia's hegemony 1n the White House and wished fo r a co n stitu tio n al amendment which would "w rest the sovereignty o f the union out o f the hands" o f the Old Dominion by p ro h ib itin g any s ta te from dominating th e p resid en tial 2 ro ll c a ll. Feeling ag ain st the V irginia succession was not a recent development, fo r 1 t could be observed 1n the North as ea rly as 1804 and 1808.3 Despite h is ro le as Madison's fa v o rite , Monroe was not even ^Macon to William H. Crawford, January 30, 1814, William H. Crawford Papers, Library o f Congress. ^William R. Davie to William Gaston, November 27, 1814, William Gaston Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. ^Matthew Lyon to Stephen R. Bradley, January 21, 1808, 1n the Northern Post (Salem, N ew York), February 24, 1808, p. 2. Charles Francis Adams, e d ., Memoirs o f John Quincy Adams, Comprising P ortions o f His Diary from 1795 to 1848 (12 v o ls ., P h ilad elp h ia. 1874-1877). V;- *75--7S. --------------------- 222 wholly acceptable to members o f the Richmond Junto, e sp ecially Wilson Cary N icholas, William Branch G iles, and Spencer Roane. In mld-1815, the S ecretary o f S tate was aware th a t th is group was working against him behind the scenes. But these Junto notables were unable to turn th e ir s ta te : V irginia would support Monroe In the p resid en tial caucus sweepstakes, and the Junto would go along, though with l i t t l e enthusiasm . Indeed, the V irginia Assembly and the Richmond Enquirer were lukewarm to Monroe's candidacy before the congressional caucus.4 There were numerous p o ten tial p resid en tial hopefuls to whom the a n ti-V irg in ia forces could have turned. In addition to Adams, Henry Clay, Daniel D. Tompkins, William H. Crawford, William Lowndes, Langdon Cheves, Simon Snyder, and John C. Calhoun had a ll been mentioned 1n Washington as possible contenders.5 In f a c t, one Wash ington observer In early 1815 declared th a t Monroe had l i t t l e chance and talked of a Tompkins-Crawford tic k e t.5 Aaron Burr even devised a rid icu lo u s scheme by which he hoped to thw art Monroe, the V irginia 4James Monroe to --------, Ju ly 15, 1815, James Monroe Papers, N ew York Public L ibrary. "A V irginian," L etters on the Richmond Party (Washington, D.C., 1823), 30. James MorHson to Wilson Cary Nicholas, February 18, 1816, Wilson Cary Nicholas Papers, U niversity o f Vir g in ia . See also Harry Amnon, "The Richmond Junto, 1800-1824," The V irginia Magazine o f H istory and Biography, LXI (October, 1953)T~^05- 6. Norman K. R lsJord, TheOld Republicans: Southern Conservatism 1n the Age o f Jefferson (New York and London, 1965), 179. 5John C. F itz p a tric k , e d ., The Autobiography of Martin Van Buren (Vol. I I , Report o f the American H isto rical A ssociation, Washington, D.C., 1920), 122. 5Lew1s Williams to William Lenoir, December 20, 1815, Lenoir Family Papers, Southern H istorical C o llectio n , U niversity of North C arolina. 223 dynasty, and the caucus nomination by urging Joseph A lston, former governor of South C arolina, to run Andrew Jackson. The plan was to have the South Carolina s ta te le g isla tu re e ith e r nominate Jackson o r denounce caucus nominations preparatory to a la te r time when Old Hickory would be brought forward. This Idea, however, was consigned to u tte r fa ilu r e , and no attem pt was made to Implement 1 t.7 While a ll but Monroe and Crawford were elim inated by caucus tim e, Adams and Tompkins remained p o s s ib ilitie s somewhat longer than the o th ers. One congressman from N ew England f e l t th a t Adams' absence from the country prevented a su b stan tial e f fo r t by eastern Republicans O to support him fo r P resident. Though Monroe was the early fa v o rite among many, opposition both to him and to the V irginia dynasty became more vocal as electio n time approached.9 John Quincy Adams remarked about c o n flic t between N ew York and V irginia during these y e ars, a stru g g le Involving "a burgeoning In d u stria l and shipping colossus and the p la n te r In te re s t 7Burr to A lston, November 20, 1815; Alston to Burr, February 16, 1816, In Matthew L. Davis, Memoirs o f Aaron Burr (2 v o ls ., N ew York, 1858), I I , 433-37. ^William Plumer to John Quincy Adams, March 6 , 1816, Adams Family Papers, M assachusetts H isto rical S ociety. Clay was also mentioned fo r the vice-presidency. Christopher Hughes to Jonathan R ussell, November 20, 1815, Jonathan Russell Papers, Brown U niversity. ® A n a r tic le from the Baltimore American rep rin ted In the National In te llig e n c e r, March 4, 1816, said Republicans had looked to Monroe fo r more than two y ears. See also the In te llig e n c e r, March 13, 1816, p. 3. P eter B. P o rter to James Monroe, March 25, 1816, James Monroe Papers, Library o f Congress. Even 1n 1812, various F ed eralists viewed Monroe as th e h e ir apparent. Abraham Shepherd to Timothy P ickering, October 4, 1812, Timothy Pickering Papers, M assachusetts H isto rical Society. 224 of th e Old Dominion."™ One paper suggested th a t th ere were six re a sons why Monroe should not be P resid en t, and a ll of them re late d to the Secretary o f S ta te 's connection with V irg in ia .^ Martin Van Buren noted th a t complaints ag ain st ele c tin g another of the dynasty were expressed not only by the most activ e p o litic ia n s but also by the 12 mass o f the people. Monroe n a tu ra lly d islik e d the ant1-V1rg1n1a fu ro r th a t was developing and said he thought the question o f s ta te residence should not be emphasized.™ The Richmond Enquirer contributed I ts p a rt to the V irginia cause by an a r t ic le suggesting th a t concern with the men was o f su b sta n tia lly more Importance than the s ta te where they liv ed . A sim ilar a r tic le was even rep rin ted 1n the Philadelphia Aurora, a paper hardly noted as a primary adm inistration organ.™ Mindful o f N ew York's Increasing Importance 1n the Union and discontent with a Virginia-New York axis In which they always got second place on the tic k e t, various Republican leaders of the Empire s ta te hoped to achieve the e le ctio n o f th e ir fav o rite son, Governor Daniel D. Tompkins. One knowledgeable F ed eralist reported th a t Tomp- ™Adams, Memoirs o f John Quincy Adams, IV, 495. ^ Green Mountain Farmer In the National In te llig e n c e r, March 6, 1816, p.TT ™Van Buren to William W . Bibb ( d r a f t) , January 29, 1816, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library o f Congress. ™Monroe to ------- , December 6 , 1815, James Monroe Papers, N ew York Public Library. ^Richmond Enquirer, December 2, 1815, p. 3. Aurora, December 2, 1815, p. 2. 225 kins had decided to '"go fo r the whole1 — No vice presidency fo r him" and th a t the movement was stro n g .15 The Tompkins men from the Empire s ta te hoped to r a lly support In Congress o f a ll those "opposed 1n the ab stract to another P resident from V irginia," but th e ir e ffo rts met with scant success. Though many "anti-V irginians" expressed a g reat regard fo r N ew York's claim s, they—esp ecially those from the S o u th - objected th a t Tompkins was not s u ffic ie n tly known to the people o f other s ta te s . Some o f them even threatened to acquiesce to Monroe's nomination 1f the N ew Yorkers In siste d on pushing th e ir can d id ate.15 A lbert G allatin , also opposed to Monroe's e le c tio n , had experienced early hopes fo r Tompkins but gave up the p ro je ct when he f e l t chances looked poor. The Tompkins men were thus thrown In to a dilemma. Should they go fo r th e ir fa v o rite and take th e ir chances o r seek a man who was from n eith er N ew York nor V irginia? Or should they give up the fig h t and l e t the Dominion dynasty hold sway fo r another four o r eig h t years?17 Besides Tompkins, another N ew Yorker, D e W itt C linton, also had In te rm itten t p resid e n tia l asp iratio n s. Because of h is opposition 15Samue1 Preston to Timothy P ickering, January 15, 1816, Timothy Pickering Papers, M assachusetts H istorical Society. 15Samuel R. B etts to Martin Van Buren, January 19,1816, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library of Congress. See also Jabez Hammond, P o litic a l P a rties 1n the S tate of N ew York (2 v o ls .. Cooperstown. N ew York, 184*), I , 40ff.---------------------------------- 17Aurora, December 16, 1815, p. 2. Jonathan Russell to Henry Clay, October 15, 1815, 1n James F. Hopkins and Mary W . Hargreaves, e d s ., The Papers o f Henry Clay (10 v o ls ., Lexington, Kentucky, 1959—) , I I , 77-78. to the war and a congenial outlook toward o th er o f th e ir p o lic ie s , Clinton acted In quas1>coa11t1on with the F ed eralists In 1812; an embryonic national convention o f th a t p arty decided, In e f fe c t, to support his candidacy 1n view of the si1m chances o f e lectin g one of th e ir own. With the F ed eralist stren g th In addition to the C lintonian fo rces, the N ew Yorker came rath e r close to defeating James Madison, losing 1n the e lecto ral college by the com paratively narrow margin o f 128-89J 8 Despite the fa ilu re o f th is e f f o r t, some F ed eralists hoped to prevent Monroe's electio n 1n 1816 through a riv a l Republican candidate who would s p li t the p arty . About caucus tim e, th ere were some e ffo rts by a few N ew York Republicans and others to s t i r up In te re s t 1n running Clinton fo r P resident whatever the Washington nomination might be. The F ed eralists g le e fu lly publicized th is attem pt with the hopes, no doubt, e ith e r o f arranging some form of co-operative e f fo r t or a t le a s t of co n trib u tin g to a Republican s p l i t by fanning the Clinton embers.19 But d esp ite the approaching dawn o f the so -called "Era of Good F eelings," many Republicans were unconvinced o f the com patibility o f F ed eralists with the m ajority p arty . Wrote one: I have no doubts but many good democrats . . . begin to b eliev e, the fe d e ra lis ts are under strong conviction, and 1®Rufus King's memorandum on the F ed e ra list convention, September 15-17, 1812, Rufus King Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. 19Gouvemeur Morris to Joseph Kingsbury, December 19, 1815, 1n Elizabeth Brook, e d ., "F ed eralist Jerem iahs," American H isto rical Review. XLIII (October, 1937), 78. William Plumer to Samuel §. LCanns?] (copy), December 18, 1815, William Plumer Papers, Library o f Congress. New-York Evening P o st. March 13, 1816, p. 2; March 15, 1816, p. 2. Aurora, March 16, 1816, p. 2. Ill w ill soon be converted and sue fo r admission In to our p o litic a l church. I f such should be the case I sh all believe the mllennlum fs lc ] has already begun, and th a t the lamb and the tyger lsTc] are about to lie down together. Indeed, the millennium had not arriv ed : C lin to n 's asso ciatio n with the F ed eralists 1n the previous e lectio n scarcely endeared him to the mass of Republicans, and the movement 1n h is favor—I f Indeed 1t can be called a movement—a ttra c te d scant support. Clinton him self 21 la te r said he worked fo r Monroe 1n th is co n test. A m ong the early proponents o f William H. Crawford's candidacy seem to have been some members o f the faction formerly known as Quids, though a t f i r s t they had serious Intentions of backing C linton, having done so 1n 1812. This group was discouraged a t the prospect o f C lin to n 's chances and stim ulated ra th e r early the movement fo r Crawford ag ain st th e V irginia heir-apparent. Various F e d e ra lists, hoping to prevent Monroe's accession, were also among the e a r lie s t supporters o f Crawford. A lbert G a lla tin , a frien d o f the War S ecretary, apparently was another who was sig n ific a n t 1n bringing 22 Crawford's name Into the co n test. There was some ta lk , then, o f running C linton, but the most 20 Ebenezer Sage to John W . T aylor, January 27, 1816, John W . Taylor Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. ^ C lin to n to N. Ingraham, April 10, 1817, D e W itt Clinton Miscellaneous M anuscripts, New-York H istorical Society. 22 For an ex cellen t study o f the Quids, see Noble E. Cunningham, J r . , "W ho Were the Quids?" M ississippi Valley H isto rical Review, L (September, 1963), 252-63. James Wllhan to be W itt C linton, April 11, 1816, De Witt Clinton Papers, Columbia U niversity. Richmond Enquirer, February 8 , 15, 1816. Aurora, February 22, 1816. av ailab le man on whom the anti-Monroe leaders could unite would prove to be William H. Crawford. Considerable d iv isio n ex isted among members o f Congress; some thought a m ajority favored Crawford. Yet there seemed to be much question regarding whether the Georgian him s e lf wished to be 1n the race. A p o litic a l confidant o f Crawford published a l e t t e r which suggested th a t the Secretary of War "was unw illing to be held up as a competitor" fo r the presidency, but some an aly sts said th is and other disclaim ers o f Crawford's candidacy were made w ithout h is consent.22 Hugh Nelson, a congressional backer o f Monroe, remarked th a t the printed m issive "seems modestly to decline a ll com petition fo r the o ffic e ; but y e t seems to leave 1 t to be understood th a t I f 1t be forced upon him, he cannot decline the o ffic e . His frien d s seem determined to force 1 t upon him."2* John Randolph 1n h is usual cau stic s ty le wrote from the n a tio n 's cap ital th a t the " le tte r of Dr. Bibb . . . 1s not considered here (I am to ld ) as a renunciation of Mr. C[raw ford]'s hopes; since he modestly disavows claims upon the Presidency. I t 1s considered as a meek noto eplscopan, offered by the U p s, when the crown 1s Itching fo r 22Aurora, January 12, 1816, p. 2. Nathaniel Macon to Joseph H. Nicholson, January 18, 1816, Joseph H. Nicholson Papers, Library of Congress. Richmond Enquirer, January 18, 1816, p. 2. Moss Kent to James Kent, January 27, 18)6, James Kent Papers, Library o f Congress. Martin Van Buren to William Bibb ( d ra f t), January 29, 1816; Bibb to Van Buren, February 5, 1816, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library o f Congress. 2*Nelson to Charles E verette, February 2, 1816, Hugh Nelson Papers, Library o f Congress. 229 a m itre ." 25 Thus, in certain q u a rte rs, 1t was f e l t th a t the Georgian probably could win and th a t he was not keeping him self out of the c o n te st, while others f e lt Crawford wished to remain on the sid elin es but would be run anyway by the an ti-V irg in ia , anti-Monroe forces who hoped to nominate him 1n the caucus. One congressman subsequently accused the War Secretary of chameleonic ta c tic s regarding the candidacy question: with the fa te of D e W1tt Clinton fresh In mind, the Georgian was characterized as seeking to mask his ambition by resolving "to H e s t i l l , to flo a t on the tid e , and preserve a doubtful 26 h e sita tin g appearance of d eclin in g ." Crawford him self la te r said friends had prevented his making an unequivocal d eclaratio n withdrawing 27 from the race. Given these somewhat confusing circum stances, prominent N ew York Republicans expressed a v ariety o f opinions. One In sisted th a t Parson Van P elt may electio n eer from th is time u n tlll [sic ] a ll the votes are canvassed to make Governor Tompkins P resid en t, w ithout adding one p o litic a l cu b it to his s ta tu re . . . . He 1s too young; and ever too v o la tile , fo r the g rav ity , d ig n ity , and vast re sp o n sib ility of th a t s ta tio n : nay more, I am among those o f his friends who do fu lly believe th a t he 1s not destined, ever to be old enough fo r th a t s ta tio n . . . . Leave the question to the s ta te o f N ew York to decide and he w ill not be elected . He acquits him self very well as governor; 1n th is o ffice l e t him remain. The w rite r went on to laud Monroe and to Indicate th a t he f e l t Empire 26 Randolph to David Parish (photocopy), February 3, 1816, John Randolph Papers, U niversity of V irginia. 26W1ll1am Plumer to John Quincy Adams (copy), July 30, 1816, William Plumer Papers, Library o f Congress. 27Crawford to A lbert G allatin , M ay 10, 1816, A lbert G allatin Papers, New-York H istorical Society. 230 s ta te Republicans overwhelmingly favored the Secretary o f S ta te , In sistin g th a t "public opinion centers upon him, as u n h esitatin g ly , g en erally , and s te a d ily , as 1t did upon Nr. Jefferso n , o r Mr. Madison." H e was not blind to Crawford's m erits but thought they were fa r less noteworthy than those o f Monroe, though standing him above other less prominent contenders.*® Some lead ers, however, took a to ta lly d iffe re n t stand. Urging magnanimity by the congressmen from the South, the Albany Argus spoke 1n favor o f Tompkins' candidacy.*® Jabez Ham m ond reported 1n January of 1816 th a t the N ew York congressional delegation had decided to support Tompkins, though he had not y e t figured how the e f fo r t could succeed. Indeed, Hamm ond had thought they should and would support Crawford In preference to Monroe, thereby dividing the southern In te re s t and enabling them to procure Tompkins' nomination—or a t le a s t to function In a President-making ro le by deciding the contest In favor o f the Georgian. Samuel R. B etts, one of the N ew York congressional delegation, concluded th a t th e ir d esire to secure Tompkins' nomination was hopeless, and I f the group reached the same conclusion a t I ts approaching meeting, he favored throwing the s ta te 's support to Crawford. As to the G eorgian's w illingness to run, Crawford would g et Into the race, he f e l t , I f New York c ast I ts strength 1n h is d ire c tio n . I f those opposed to Monroe could only concentrate on Crawford, they could carry the day. In f a c t, I f the N ew York *®Jonathan Fisk to John W . T aylor, December 31, 1815, John W . Taylor Papers, New-York H istorical Society. *®Arqus, January 19, 1816, p. 2; January 30, 1816, p. 2. 231 Republicans could push a nomination o f Crawford fo r P resident and Tompkins fo r V ice-President through the s ta te le g isla tu re Instead of relying on a congressional caucus, such a tic k e t could be on I ts way to success.30 The N ew York delegation generally did abandon any plans to give Tompkins undivided support fo r P resid en t, but th e ir subsequent a ttitu d e s were fa r from unanimous. Betts suggested the group might fa ll Into such a d iv e rsity o f oolnlons th a t Monroe would lik e ly secure the nomination. A few of the members In siste d , a t le a s t fo r a w hile, on supporting Tompkins even a f te r I t was determined th a t he had no prospect o f success. Others Indicated they would back Monroe over Crawford, professing th is choice to be out of regard fo r Tompkins because, they sa id , New York would be disgraced 1n advocating Crawford, who was certa in to lo se. B etts, however, believed th a t th e ir main object was and should be to d efeat the V irginia candidate by one of th e ir own 1f possible but by someone e lse 1f necessary. I f N ew York Republicans sin cerely wanted an e f fo r t made fo r Crawford, 1t might well be b e tte r to nominate him a t Albany, because the s p li t among them 1n Washington made I t ra th e r Im practical to do so th ere. Betts had heard th a t many party members In N ew York had l i t t l e concern regarding the nomination 1f th e ir home s ta te candidate had no chance. I f th is were so , he asked Martin Van Buren to l e t him know. In th a t case, he and his associates would not make themselves look rid icu lo u s by pressing the m atter. They would simply f a ll to attend the caucus. 30Betts to Van Buren, January 19, 1816; H am m ond to Van Buren, January 23, 1816, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library of Congress. 232 N evertheless, Betts f e l t there was a strong m ajority o f Republicans 1n the cap ital who p referred Crawford to Monroe, but he wondered I f th e ir present silen c e were because of tim id ity or d isc re tio n —silen ce u n til the caucus decision had been made. But a f te r th e choice had been made, th e ir lo y alty to the "regular" nomination would, he f e l t , prevent th e ir d issen tin g . Thus did the dilemma faced by Crawford Republicans from N ew York have many f a c e ts .3^ By c o n tra st, a portion of the V irginia congressional dele gation feared th a t a caucus choice would go to Crawford and resolved to combat th a t ev en tu ality by refusing to attend any such meeting unless circumstances changed s ig n ific a n tly —namely, enough to Indi cate Monroe would receive the nomination. Some V irginians hoped th a t th e ir s ta te and Republicans elsewhere would support the dynasty candidate regardless of who was selected In Washington.33 The decision a t th is time not to attend a caucus represented a change o f position fo r the V irginia group. The delegation had e a r lie r asked Nathaniel Macon—though without success—to c a ll a caucus.33 O n the o ther side o f the a is le , some p o litic ia n s thought l i t t l e o f e ith e r 3^Betts to Van Buren, February 5, 1816, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library o f Congress. 32 ilames Barbour e t a l . to Hugh Nelson, February 9 , 1816; Spencer Roane to James Barbour, February lz . 1816, James Barbour Papers, N ew York Public Library. The V irginia le g isla tiv e caucus, however, met on February 14 and chose a tic k e t o f e le cto rs who were to be n o tifie d o f th e ir recommended course o f action a f te r the Washington nomination had been made. Richmond Enquirer, February 20, 1816, p. 3. 33Nathan1el Macon to Joseph H. Nicholson, February 12, 1816, Joseph H. Nicholson Papers, Library of Congress. 233 Monroe o r Crawford. Wrote one: "Of Monroe and Crawford I should spy . . . what Johnson once said when asked his opinion o f two men he held In equal contempt; 'S ir th e re 's no such thing as deciding upon the su p erio rity between a louse and a f l e a .'" 34 As caucus time approached, p o litic a l jockeying fo r the pole p o sitio n proceeded apace. In Boston, a meeting o f Republican members o f the le g is la tu re , plus o th er notable party sta lw a rts, gathered to express th e ir approval of Monroe, and a le t t e r was sent to ask Massachusetts congressmen to work fo r h is nomination. A sim ilar convocation was held In N ew Hampshire. In Rhode Islan d , a convention o f delegates from the various towns met on February 21 and passed reso lu tio n s favoring the nomination of Monroe fo r P resident and Tompkins fo r V ice-President; the Republicans 1n th a t s ta t e 's le g is la tu re nominated the same tic k e t.3® Newspapers favorable to Monroe c arried a r tic le s p raisin g h is services and condemning the a n ti- V irginia a ttitu d e o f h is opponents.36 The anti-Monroe charges were also In motion. Hugh Nelson, an Important V irginia congressman, wrote th a t Monroe had suffered from the delay In holding the caucus and th a t g reat e ffo rts were being W illia m Coleman to Rufus King, February 7, 1816, Rufus King Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. 36George Ervlng to James Monroe, January 25, 1816, James Monroe Papers, N ew York Public L ibrary. N ew York Evening P o st, March 26, 1816, p. 2. 36American and Commercial Dally A dvertiser (B altim ore), February 10, 1816, p. 2. Richmond Enquirer, February )0 . 1816, p. 2. made by the Crawford managers.37 Rumors about prelim inary caucuses were numerous. Some o f these reported gatherings supposedly went against the V irginia candidate, and the news offensive In favor of Crawford was supplemented by statem ents saying th a t he had agreed to run against Monroe and th a t negotiations were under way to secure a Crawford-Tompklns t ic k e t.38 John McLean reported from Washington th a t a c o a litio n had, 1n fa c t, been formed between the Tompkins men of N ew York and the Crawford backers 1n which the Georgian was to have f i r s t place on the tic k e t. But McLean thought Monroe would be the successful nominee and spoke against the an ti-V irg in ia s e n ti ment which was p revalent 1n the Crawford camp.39 Another observer, while Implying th a t Monroe had an edge 1n the caucus race, Indicated the War Secretary could carry the day 1f he allowed him self to be openly supported, while y et another wrote th a t though Crawford had a m ajority 1n Congress, the delegates would probably vote th e ir c o n stitu e n ts' preferences and choose Monroe.40 One analyst contributed to the Crawford news campaign by assertin g th a t the Monroe forces were Indulging 1n th e ir own propaganda e ffo rt In the National 37[Nelson] to Charles E verette, January 23, [1816], Hugh Nelson Papers, Library o f Congress. ^A lexander C. Hanson to Robert Goodloe Harper, February 1, 1816, Robert Goodloe Harper Papers, Library of Congress. Nelson to E verette, February 2, [1816], Hugh Nelson Papers, Library of Congress. 39McLean to Thomas Worthington (copy), February 3, 1816, Thomas Worthington Papers, Ohio H istorical Society. 40Chr1stopher Hughes to Jonathan R ussell, February 5, 1816, Jonathan Russell Papers, Brown U niversity. Jeremiah Morrow to Thomas Worthington (copy), February 12, 1816, Thomas Worthington Papers, Ohio H istorical Society. 235 In te llig e n c e r to convince the public th a t the Secretary o f S tate was the overwhelming choice o f the p arty and th a t Crawford absolutely wished to stay out o f the co n test. To the contrary, In siste d the commentator, the Secretary o f Mar had support 1n a ll p a rts of the nation as well as a m ajority 1n Congress, and those who favored him f e l t assured th a t he would run 1f nominated.4^ Nelson was d is s a tis fie d with the published comments on the Crawford candidacy—o r lack of I t —and condemned the various rumors as weapons being employed ag ain st Monroe.4^ Monroe not unexpectedly viewed the movements against him with d is tin c t displeasure. He observed 1n early 1816—probably In la te January or 1n February—th a t when Congress had assembled the members appeared to be generally 1n his favor. But then various N ew Yorkers began to act fo r Tompkins, followed by a move among some southern delegates fo r Crawford and a sim ilar action by certa in men from the West favoring Clay fo r V ice-President. Monroe f e l t th a t h is own friends fa ile d to act as vigorously as they could have and th a t the prospects fo r a caucus appeared dim. I t seemed as though the opposition men wanted no caucus 1n the early stage of the game because they feared I t would choose the Secretary of S ta te , while Monroe's friends were apparently not avidly In terested 1n activ ely promoting a congressional nomination fo r him. One problem fo r his ^ B a r t l e t t Yancey to Thomas R uffin, February 16, 1816, Thomas Ruffin Papers, Southern H istorical C ollection, U niversity o f North C arolina. 4*Ne1son to E verette, February 2, [1816], Hugh Nelson Papers, Library o f Congress. 236 prospects was the su b stan tial a n ti-V irg in ia fe e lin g , which made his Old Dominion backers re lu c ta n t to push him because they thought some other s ta te should take the lead 1n c a llin g a nominating caucus. Monroe him self thought a caucus choice would be d esira b le, c e rta in ly superior to some s o rt of national convention which would Involve many problems regarding appointment o f d eleqates; moreover, fa ilu re to agree on one Republican candidate might lead to a s p li t 1n the party and a chance, so he sa id , fo r the F e d e ra lists.4^ To make m atters worse, the opposition fo rces, Monroe f e l t , were working against him somewhat u n fa irly . The N ew York members, fo r example, reportedly offered to make a deal with the Crawford men 1n which a Tompkins-Crawford tic k e t would be supported, but th is suggestion was rejected . Undaunted, the Empire s ta te men sup posedly then turned to Clay but experienced fa ilu re there as w ell. But a rumor was a flo a t th a t the Crawford forces would agree to a c o a litio n with the N ew Yorkers 1n which Tompkins received the second spot. These various reports n atu ra lly made Monroe feel suspicious o f Crawford, since such a c tiv itie s were In obvious contradiction to statem ents supposedly made with the Georgian's approval which 1nd1- 43Monroe to ------- ( d ra f t), [1816], James Monroe Papers, Library of Congress. Some, o f course, vigorously disagreed with Monroe's assessment th a t a m ajority of Republican congressmen favored him. Jabez Hanmond, fo r example, f e l t sure th a t more than h a lf preferred Crawford to the V irginian even a t the beginning o f the session. See Hanmond, P o litic a l P arties In N ew York, I , 412. One an aly st reported the V irginia group had promised—almost c e rta in ly never thinking they might have to make 1 t good—th a t 1f an acceptable Republican candidate from another s ta te appeared, they would support him. W hen the chips were down, however, they not only refused to comply but also worked activ ely fo r Monroe. John Spear Smith to Jonathan R ussell, March 21, 1816, Jonathan Russell Papers, Brown U niversity. 237 cated he declined the ro le o f an activ e candidate. I f the s to rie s of p artisan In trig u e were tru e , Monroe thought the Crawford side should be condemned fo r foul play. I f not tru e , then the p artie s Involved should say so, and Crawford should openly and fin a lly declare whether he wished to be a candidate. A negative reply from Crawford ought to end a ll schemes against Monroe's candidacy; a p o sitiv e response would a t le a s t bring the m atter Into sharp focus and force the Monroe men to take d e fin ite actio n . Any caucus with Crawford s t i l l In the f ie ld only by Im plication should be boycotted by the Vir g in ia forces because o f the foul play, and they would then appeal 44 to the Republican party throughout the nation. Monroe was not the only one disturbed by Crawford's performance. The Philadelphia Democratic Press accused the War Secretary o f "double dealing, th is carrying w ater on both shoulders, th is system atic managed Indeci s io n .''45 Having fin a lly given up on Tompkins, the N ew York congres sional delegation remained s p l i t . While many were strongly against the V irginian, a few appeared to be unalterably favorable and would not support Crawford on any terms. But the anti-Monroe forces would not crumble: on the evening o f February 24, th ere was to be a meeting o f a committee from a ll the s ta te s th a t would cast votes against the Secretary o f S ta te , and these delegates hoped to out lin e a general plan o f a tta c k , Including the se le c tio n of the candidate 44 Monroe to ------- ( d ra f t), [1816], James Monroe Papers, Library o f Congress. 45 Democratic Press In N iles' Weekly R eg ister, September 25, 1824. 238 to marshall th e ir tro o p s. Considering Tompkins out o f contention, the N ew York members o f Congress decided to act on th e ir own judgment ap art from the reso lu tio n s o f the Republicans 1n the s ta te le g isla tu re requesting support fo r him.*** In fa c t, the p o sitio n of the Republicans 1n the N ew York le g isla tu re was somewhat unclear: Tompkins was endorsed, though not s p e c ific a lly nominated, fo r P resid en t, but he was la te r named as a candidate fo r governor, thus providing fo r additional confusion. In any case, reso lu tio n s from 47 the N ew York le g is la tiv e Republicans, seemed c le arly a n ti-V irg in ia . While divided, the N ew York delegation was heavily fo r Crawford, though they apparently did agree to support any nomination decided upon by the caucus. Jabez Hammond reported th a t the Empire s ta te meeting had been Influenced by P eter B. P o rter, Enos T. Throop, and John W . Taylor to adjourn w ithout making a decision between Crawford and Nonroe, even though the delegation favored the Georgian by a su b stan tial m ajority. Each man would thus vote as he chose In the balloting.*® But the many-sided situ a tio n became even more I n tr ic a te . One p o s s ib ility which had been considered by the Empire s ta te delegation *®Samue1 Betts to Martin Van Buren, February 24, 1816, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library o f Congress. Hammond, P o litic a l P arties In N ew York, I , 409-12. John W . Taylor to John Tayler (copy), February z8, 1816, John W . Taylor Papers, New-York H istorical Society. ^ N atio n al In te llig e n c e r, March 1, 1816, p. 3; March 8, 1816, p. 3; March 3o, 1816, p. 3. Albany Argus, February 23, 1816, p. 2; March 5, 1816, p. 3. N ew York Evening P o st, March 26, 1816, p. 2. *®Hammond, P o l i t i c a l P a r t i e s 1n New Y ork, I , 4 0 9 -1 2 . 239 was the expediency o f preventing a congressional nomination. The same Idea occurred to the various pro-Monroe forces as w ell: a correspondent o f the Savannah Republican wrote from Washington on February 26 th a t Monroe's friends were attem pting to avoid a caucus 49 because they knew Crawford would win. Such an approach seemed not to be lim ited to a few: by early March one R epresentative reported th a t 1t was generally thought there would be no nominations 1n Washington.50 The Philadelphia Aurora exulted prem aturely: W e congratulate the public on the destruction of a monster called C A U C U S. . . . The nation w ill now possess once more the power, along with the r ig h t, o f sele ctin g Its own candidates fo r I ts own o ffic e s ; and fo r p u ttin g an end forever to those Infamous bargains, by which the appolntments, vested 1n the executive, were employed as a medium o f exchange for congressional v o tes. . . . H itherto a s e t o f w retches, notorious fo r being sold and sale ab le , have superceeded[s1c] the public voice. . . . C A U C U S 1s dead.51 I f a caucus were held, however, the bulk o f the N ew York votes would go fo r Crawford. Tompkins, meanwhile, had been strad d lin g the p o litic a l fence: w illin g to play fo r f i r s t place I f enough support m aterialized , but sensing an ex cellen t chance fo r second spot on the tic k e t, which was b e tte r than nothing, he refused to say he would not run with Monroe, though favoring Crawford and the ending o f the V irginia suc 49 Samuel Betts to Martin Van Buren, February 24, 1816, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library o f Congress. National In te llig e n c e r, March 6, 1816, p. 3; March 16, 1816, p. 3. 50 John W . Taylor to Cowen, March 4, 1816, John W . Taylor Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. ^ A u ro ra , F eb ru ary 2 8 , 1816, p . 2 . 240 cession. So, a t le a s t, observed one who had a b ird 's eye view.52 Anti-caucus opinion was to be fbund In o th er c irc le s as w ell. Opposition had been evident 1n 1808 and 1812, coming larg ely from those who supported candidates o th er than the regular nominee. Though many o f these arguments ag ain st the nominating system were phrased In a lt r u i s t i c and co n stitu tio n a l term s, personal In te re s t played a v ita l ro le In th e ir o rig in s. The s itu a tio n In 1816, however, was some what d iffe re n t from the previous two p re sid e n tial campaigns. N either major contender fo r caucus honors was a c e rtain choice, and many Republican supporters o f both men were a t times undecided about whether C 4 to support o r to oppose the congressional nomination. But the P hiladelphia Aurora p rin ted a r tic le s which declared ag ain st congres sional nominations as contravening both the rig h ts o f the people and the separation o f powers p rin c ip le . The suggested a lte rn a tiv e was nomination by s ta te le g is la tu re s .54 One Monroe jo u rn a l, the Democratic Press o f P h iladelphia, attempted to Influence the caucus—1f Indeed one were held—by threatening th a t the people would accept no man o th er than Monroe and In sistin g th a t the choice o f another candidate would mark the end o f the already shaky system o f congressional 52V1ctory Birdseye to John W . Taylor, March 13, 1816, John W . Taylor Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. 52Samuel Betts to Martin Van Buren, February 24, 1816; Nathan Sanford to Van Buren, March 14, 1816, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library o f Congress. 54Aurora, January 5, 1816, pp. 2-3; January 31, 1816, p. 2. 241 nom inations.55 The Albany Argus asserted 1 t was too la te to arrange 56 among the s ta te s fo r a d iffe re n t method of choosing candidates. In ad d itio n , various m inority party voices c ritic iz e d the caucus. A F ed eralist paper, The Examiner of N ew York, spoke vigorously against the system. Denouncing the caucus as "corrupt and p ro flig a te ," the paper characterized I t as a means o f nomination to which Americans had become s e rv ile . The e d ito r's tru e fe e lin g s, however, were revealed when he went on to I n s is t th a t any caucus should Include F ed e ra lists. Some sib lin g p rin ts expressed sim ilar views. Even weak p o litic a l groups scarcely enjoy being excluded from th e stream 57 o f policy making. Whatever the e ffe c ts of these feelin g s among Republicans and F e d e ra lists, the f i r s t attem pt to hold a caucus proved abortive. Only 58 Republican members of Congress met on the evening o f March 12 In response to an unexpected and anonymous notice circu lated two days e a r lie r . Jeremiah Morrow o f Ohio served as chairman and Lewis Condict o f New Jersey as secretary o f th is group. Perceiving the f u t i l i t y o f any action by so few, the p artic ip a n ts resolved to meet again on March 16, hoping th a t a more a u th o rita tiv e call published 1n the National In te llig e n c e r and the Washington Gazette would a ttr a c t additional Republican congressmen. I t was believed 1n some c irc le s , 55 Democratic P ress, February 13, 1816, 1n the Albany Argus, February 23, 1816, pp. 2-3. 56 Argus. January 9, 1816, p. 2. 57The Examiner. January 8 , 1816, p. 73. See also the Issues of January zz and March 4. Richmond Enquirer, March 23, 1816, p. 3. 242 notably those favorable to Monroe, th a t the caucus scheduled fo r March 12 was the work o f the Crawford men, who believed they could win at th is point and wanted to force the Monroe congressmen Into a situ a tio n which would both be s e ttle d In favor o f the Georgian and be binding upon the friends o f the Secretary of S ta te because o f th e ir p a r tic i pation. But, as some observers an tic ip a te d , the Monroe supporters, fearfu l th a t the War Secretary would win, n eu tralized the attempted coup by refusing to attend th is caucus 1n any number, thus leaving th e ant1-V1rg1n1a troops without what they hoped would be a large captive m inority. Since they had made no agreement to hold the caucus a t th is tim e, those who favored the V irginian f e l t no com punctions about th e ir boycott and thus successfully re sis te d the attem pt o f the o th er side to pressure them Into playing with a stacked deck. I f the small number In attendance had been In su ffic ie n t In I t s e l f , the absence o f nearly a ll the Monroe backers elim inated the Crawford lie u te n a n ts' esse n tia l condition requiring the p a r tic i pation o f Monroe's adherents and made any action Inexpedient. More over, th ere were apparently a few a t th is f i r s t caucus who objected to the questionable methods by which the caucus had been c a lle d . The Crawfordltes refused to give up th e ir plan fo r a showdown and sought to force th e ir opponents Into a te s t on March 16.^8 Much uncertainty p revailed between March 12 and March 16. 58Nathan Sanford to Martin Van Buren, March 14, 1816, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library o f Congress. Natlonal I n te l! 1qencer. March 12, 1816, p. 3; March 14, 1816, p. 2; March 16, 1816, p. 3. Richmond Enquirer. March 16, 1816, p. 3. N ew York Evening P o st, March 14, 1816, p. 2; March 15, 1816, p. 2. Aurora, March 16, I8 l6 , p. 2; March 26, 1816, p. 2. --------- 243 Monroe's supporters were said to be a t a lo ss to know what ta c tic s to pursue. One observer said those who professed to know most of the members' opinions thought th a t the votes o f the friends of Tompkins and Crawford would exceed the number fo r the Secretary of S ta te ; I t was understood 1n some c irc le s th a t a ll o r most of Tompkins' friends would unite behind Crawford, since the Georgian had more p a rtisa n s. Nobody could p red ict the ultim ate re s u lt of a caucus, however: many thought Crawford would win, while others expected a Monroe v icto ry . With th is prospect, the Monroe men were unable for a while to decide whether to attend the March 16 meeting. Some planned to do so; others wanted no caucus; s t i l l others favored a eg separate caucus. One commentator observed th a t the "magnates of the Georgian c h ie f, are as furious as drunken Cherokees, and the V irginian magnates appear to d elib erate upon the means b est adapted to r e s is t by amicable means, disp o sitio n s so ferocious."® 0 The National In te llig e n c e r, a staunch Monroe organ, spoke In favor o f the caucus.®^ A Washington correspondent, however, wrote the N ew York Commercial A dvertiser th a t I t was doubtful whether an^ nomination 62 would be made. Whatever developed, however, many Monroe backers were seemingly determined to hold him before the v o te rs, d espite a e g Sanford to Van Buren, March 14, 1816, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library o f Congress. ®°Letter p rin ted In the Philadelphia Aurora, March 16, 1816, p. 2. ®^In te llig e n c e r. March 14, 1816, o. 2; March 16, 1816, p. 3. ®^Commerc1al A d v e r tis e r , March 19, 1816, p . 2 . 244 63 F ed e ra list p ap er's rep o rt th a t they had given up. The outcome o f the stru g g le , I f 1t were to take place In the caucus, was 1n doubt and would be close 1n any event. The March 16 meeting received a considerably wider response: 118 Republican congressmen (Including several proxies) and the t e r r i to r ia l delegate from Indiana met to decide on the p a rty 's nominees. N ew York was present 1n nearly fu ll stre n g th , unlike 1808 and 1812, when a m ajority of her delegates boycotted the caucus larg ely because an Empire s ta te candidate was In the f ie ld who had no chance to be chosen by the delegates. Instead o f attem pting to carry the man of her choice by fig h tin g the congressional nomination, the N ew Yorkers decided to take the b a ttle Into the caucus: they expected th is to be th e ir year o f vengeance. A number o f Monroe men had met the night of March 15 and decided to attend the congressional conclave 1n order to prevent a nomination. Despite a V irginia congressman's report th a t they were "assured o f th e ir stren g th " and simply wished to s tr ik e down the caucus system, the m otivation behind the decision to block a caucus selectio n seems c le a r: as a member o f the N ew York delegation Im plied, the Monroe supporters feared th e ir candidate would lose. Since the V irginia dynasty had been nourished by th a t system, 1t seems evident th a t the Monroe adherents feared—consciously o r unconsciously—th e ir c h ie f's d efeat more than they were concerned w ith ending the p ractice of congressional nominations. Accordingly, as soon as Samuel Smith of Maryland had been appointed chairman and ^New-York Evening P o s t, March 1 5 , 1816, p . 2 . 245 Kentuckian Richard M . Johnson se c re ta ry • Henry Clay, who favored the V irginian, Immediately moved th a t 1 t was Inexpedient to s e le c t candidates. But a f te r considerable discussion, th is motion was defeated. John W . Taylor o f N ew York, another who supported Monroe, then made a second attem pt to thwart the caucus proceedings by o fferin g a reso lu tio n declaring th a t congressional nominations should 64 be discontinued; th is measure was also voted down. The group proceeded to b a llo t, and the vision of v icto ry possessed by the pro-Crawford, anti-M onroe, an ti-V irg in ia group evaporated when two delegates from Kentucky, th ree from Tennessee, two from N ew Jersey , one from Pennsylvania, and one from North 64Samuel R. B etts to Martin Van Buren, March 17, 1816, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library o f Congress. Hugh Nelson to Joseph C. C abell, March [17, 1816], Cabell Family Papers, U niversity o f V irginia. Samuel Smith and Richard M . Johnson to James Monroe, [March 19, 1816], James Monroe Papers, Library o f Congress. John Spear Smith to Jonathan R ussell, March 21, 1816, Jonathan Russell Papers, Brown U niversity. William Plumer to John Quincy Adams, July 30, 1816, William Plumer Papers, Library o f Congress. Niles* Weekly R eg ister, March 23, 1816, pp. 59-60; M ay 29, 1824, p. 207; September 2 5 ,1 8 2 4 , p. 51. Charleston C ourier. March 25, 1816, p. 2. National In te l1Igencer, March 18, 1816, pp. £-3. W . S cott to John Quincy Adams, March 20, ld l6 , Adams Family Pftpers, Massachusetts H istorical Society. About 24 Republicans were absent from the caucus, about a th ird o f whom were away from Washington. There 1s a l i t t l e u n certainty about whom John W . Taylor favored In the caucus. His pre-caucus a c tiv itie s seemed to Imply support fo r Monroe and he was thought to have voted fo r the Old Dominion candidate. Ham m ond said Taylor la te r to ld him he had not done so, thereby sug gesting th a t he had backed Crawford. His e f fo r t to block a nomination, however, makes more sense 1f he were fo r Monroe. Moreover, le tte r s to Taylor In January, February, and March o f 1816 c le a rly In d icate th a t he was 1n Monroe's camp. Ebenezer Sage to Taylor, January 27, March 7 , 1816; Jonathan Fisk to Taylor, February 20, 1816, John W . Taylor Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. Hammond, P o litic a l P a rtie s 1n N ew York, I , 412. 246 Carolina who reportedly had expressed th e ir decided preference fo r the Georgian voted Instead fo r Monroe. That they explained the switch In terms o f the preference o f th e ir co n stitu en ts provided l i t t l e solace to the Crawford men. Moreover, four 111 members voted fo r Monroe by proxy, while a t le a s t four o f Crawford's frien d s refused to atten d . Though a ll but three o r four o f the N ew York delegation voted fo r Crawford, the la s t minute collapse among some others thought to be fo r the Georgian turned the tid e : Monroe, 65; Crawford, 54. The an ti-V irg in ia forces had delayed too long In holding the caucus, and the tid e rippled toward Monroe during the previous several weeks and days as the V irginia members s tir re d from th e ir lethargy to make p o litic a l converts fo r th e ir man from among apostate congressmen. One member In siste d la te r th a t Crawford could have won I f he had been aggressive 1n seeking the nomination. A n analysis o f his votes In the caucus nevertheless reveals the d e te rio ra tin g Influence of the V irginia dynasty. In addition to N ew York, the Georgian received a m ajority of those attending from his home s ta te , N ew Jersey , Maryland, North C arolina, Kentucky, and Indiana T e rrito ry . As expected, the erstw h ile p resid en tial a sp ira n t, Daniel D. Tompkins, won the second spot over Simon Snyder, 85-30. A su rp risin g Monroe victory o f th is s o rt explains why Clay reversed h is e a r lie r po sitio n against choosing candidates and In itia te d the caucus reso lu tio n which declared the tic k e t o f fic ia lly nominated; he soon a f te r referre d to his votes fo r Monroe and Tompkins In a casual manner. John Spear Smith In sisted th a t " I t 1s generally 247 believed th a t I f the caucus had taken place four weeks e a r lie r . . . [Crawford] would have had a m ajority of 20." In any case, I f the report about the la te vote changes Is e s se n tia lly accu rate, the prize was snatched from Crawford a t the l a s t m inute.6® One prominent N ew York p o litic ia n who was a Monroe supporter apologetically explained what he f e l t caused most o f his s ta te 's congressmen to vote fo r Crawford. The mass of N ew York Republicans, Influenced by local p rid e , thought the Empire s ta te was e n title d to the next President and viewed Tompkins as the man fo r the p o sitio n . But a few activ e p o litic ia n s favored Crawford, and under the guise of backing Tompkins, they were able to Influence Republicans 1n the 65Samuel R. Betts to Martin Van Buren, March 17, 1816, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library o f Congress. Hugh Nelson to Joseph C. Cabell, March [17, 1816], Cabell Family Papers, U niversity of V irginia. Samuel Smith and Richard M . Johnson to James Monroe, [March 19, 1816], James Monroe Papers, Library of Congress. John Spear Smith to Jonathan R ussell, March 21, 1816, Jonathan Russell Papers, Brown U niversity. William Plumer to John Quincy Adams, July 30, 1816, William Plumer Papers, Library o f Congress. N iles' Weekly R eg ister, March 23, 1816, pp. 59-60; M ay 29, 1824, p. 207; September 25, 18Z4, p. 51. Charleston C ourier. March 25, 1816, p. 2. National In te l1ig en cer, March 18, 1816, pp. 2-3. W . S cott to John Quincy Adams, March 2u, 1816, Adams Family Papers, Massachusetts H isto rical Society. Richmond Enquirer, March 20, 1816, p. 3. N ew York Commercial A dvertiser, March 9, 1816, p. 2. There was re la tiv e ly l i t t l e problem with the choice fo r the second o ffic e ; Tompkins had been considered the most lik e ly running mate not only fo r Crawford but also fo r Monroe. A convention 1n Rhode Islan d , fo r example, passed reso lu tio n s favoring a Monroe-Tompklns tic k e t. A n e ffo rt had been made 1n Pennsylvania, however, to secure the nomination o f Simon Snyder o f th a t s ta te , but the p ro je ct proved abortive when an unsuccessful attem pt was made to arrange a s ta te le g is la tiv e caucus fo r the purpose o f d ire ctin g the congressional delegation to work fo r th e ir candidate. A ce rtain amount of In te re s t In the Snyder fo r Vice- President Idea continued, though, which accounts fo r his 30 votes 1n caucus. National In te llig e n c e r. March 2, 1816, p. 3. Aurora, February 19, 1816, p. 2. Philadelphia True American 1n the Charleston Courier, March 22, 1816, p. 2. 248 s ta te le g is la tu re to endorse resolutions urging the claims of N ew York and denouncing those of V irginia. Such actions were then represented to the congressional delegation as expressing a pref erence fo r Crawford over Monroe, though such was not the Intention o f many who signed the reso lu tio n s. The tru e feelin g of N ew York Republicans had been fo r Monroe over Crawford a ll along. So, a t le a s t, reported a somewhat red-faced P eter B. P o rte r.66 In view o f the closeness o f the caucus vote, the re su lt was accepted with comparatively l i t t l e hard feelin g w ithin the party. Henry Clay noted th a t the "m inority In the general acquiesce with apparent s a tis fa c tio n ," while James Barbour reported to P resident- emeritus Jefferson th a t the "utmost harmony and concord prevailed In our d elib eratio n s and the m inority declared th e ir cheerful acqui escence 1n the d ecisio n ."67 The controversy over the electio n as re fle c te d 1n the National In te llig e n c e r rapidly faded w ithin a sh o rt time a f te r the caucus, though the paper expressed dismay th a t the caucus had almost nominated Crawford, a man they f e l t the people did not fav o r.68 66P o rter to Monroe, March 25, 1816, James Monroe Papers, Library o f Congress. 67Clay to ------- (photocopy), March 24, 1816, Henry Clay Papers, Library o f Congress. Barbour to Jefferso n , March 16, 1816, Thomas Jefferso n Papers, Library o f Congress. See a lso John L. Lawrence to Jonathan R ussell, M ay 11, 1816, Jonathan Russell Papers, Massachusetts H isto rical Society. 68Nat1onal In te llig e n c e r, April 8 , 1816, p. 3. 249 In f a c t, there was su b stan tial pro-caucus opinion. The N ew York P a trio t, which before the caucus opposed another V irginia P resid en t, urged compliance by Republicans with the congressional nomination: Whatever objections may be made to the p ra c tic e of Caucus Nominations, In the present s ta te o f p o litic a l p a rtie s , we consider the measure not only ju s tif ia b le , but In a g reat measure necessary• • • • The p ractice has been adopted to prevent a m u ltip lic ity o f candidates from being held up by d iffe re n t sectio n s of the same party . . . and thereby prevent those dlssentlons [s ic ] and personal feelin g s which would su b ject I t [the p arty ] to being overcome by Its opponents.69 The Southern P a trio t also spoke In defense of the caucus: "Men may exclaim against caucus nominations, and party Influence—'T1s 1n vain—nor can they be avoided. These things grow out of the nature o f our free In s titu tio n s . . . ’t1s ju s t to counteract the poison of one party by the union o f the o th e r." A la te r Issue In siste d th a t caucuses arose "almost spontaneously out of our h ab its and modes o f thought."*0 Hezeklah N iles, while accepting the judgment of th is caucus, presaged his fu tu re opposition by demanding a more e ffe c tiv e means o f nomination 1n succeeding elec tio n s; the In te llig e n c e r also called fo r a b e tte r m ethod.^ 69 P a trio t In the National In te llig e n c e r, March 29, 1816, p. 3. ^S outhern P a trio t In the National In te llig e n c e r, April 3, 1816, p. 2; April 6 , l&lb, p. 3. ^ N lle s to William D arlington, March 21, 1816, William Darlington Papers, Library o f Congress. National In te llig e n c e r, April 8, 1816. One rep o rt Indicated th a t Crawford's lieu ten an ts decided to co n test the decision but soon abandoned th e p ro je c t. Determining to w ait h is tu rn —o r what he hoped was h is tu rn —to s i t In the p resid en tial c h a ir, Crawford deferred to the congressional decision with diplom atic aplomb, a t le a s t p u b licly . H e a lso expressed an ex post facto wish th a t some of h is frien d s who fa ile d to attend the caucus would have p a rtic ip a te d by castin g th e ir vote fo r Monroe, thereby In g ra tia tin g the War S ecretary. Crawford f e l t such a course would have done much to give him su p erio r lo g is tic a l p o sitio n In the stru g g le to succeed the la s t o f the V irginia dynasty, whereas the attem pt made by the an ti-V irg in ia group to secure h is nomination 72 subjected him to the possible charge of In trig u e . C riticism of th is nature la te r developed on a scale larg e enough to cause the Georgian considerable d isc o m fo rt.^ The F ed eralists expressed d iffe rin g opinions on the re su lt o f the caucus. Rufus King, who was to receive the few F ederalist e lec to ra l votes though not an activ e candidate, f e l t the Crawford people would submit to the congressional nomination. O thers, s t i l l hoping to defeat Monroe's electio n by supporting a d issid en t Republican, ^Craw ford to A lbert G a lla tin , M ay 10, 1816; Crawford to William Lee, M ay 19, 1816, A lbert G allatin Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. Crawford to Thomas Worthington (copy), November 23, 1816, Thomas Worthington Papers, Ohio H isto rical Society. One F ed eralist paper— perhaps somewhat b itte r ly —ascribed Crawford's decision to accept the caucus re s u lt to a promise o f the Treasury Department. New-York Evening P o st, November 12, 1816, p. 2. ^ A u r o r a . S eptem ber 14, 1816, p . 2 . 251 wished th a t the Crawford forces would not accept the v erd ict o f the caucus, thus providing an opposition contender with an estab lish ed follow ing.*4 One Republican observer also thought the F ed eralists and possibly some o f his p a rty 's m alcontents—but not Crawford's true 75 frien d s—might try to boost the Georgian's pretensions. W hen 1t was learned th a t the Secretary o f War p o sitiv e ly declined being a candidate In opposition to the caucus nominee, one F ed eralist philosophized—perhaps to console him self—th a t the Republican party had adopted the fundamental p rin cip les of the opposition p arty , 76 anyway. The Federal presses made sim ilar contributions to the p o litic a l panorama. The New-York Evening Post p rin ted a l e t t e r saying 1t was doubtful whether the Crawfordltes would submit. Another m issive excoriated the caucus as an arrogatlon of the people's rig h ts : "Our p o litic a l house 1s turned upside down. The servants have usurped the place o f th e ir m asters."** The Examiner was not only F ed e ra list, 74 Rufus King to Edward King, March 28. 1816, 1n Charles R. King, e d ., Life and Correspondence o f Rufus King (6 v o ls ., N ew York, 1894- 1900), VI, 17. William R. Davie to William Gaston, April 7, 1816, William Gaston Papers, Southern H istorical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. *5Hugh Nelson to Charles E v erette, March 29, [1816], Hugh Nelson Papers, Library o f Congress. *®W 1111am R. Davie to John Haywood, M ay [14?], 1816, Ernest Haywood C ollection, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity of North Carolina. **Even1ng P ost. March 22, 1816, p. 2. Columbian Centlnel (Boston), March 2b, 1816, p. 2. 252 but also pro-Empire s ta te and an ti-V irg in ia. One Issue castig ated Americans fo r perm itting the caucus "to fix the hereditary succession to the p re sid e n tia l ch a ir In the s ta te o f V irginia." The a r tic le goes on to I n s is t th a t Crawford would e a sily have won a nomination open to the vote o f a ll congressmen and to urge cooperation among anti-Monroe men to break both the caucus and the V irginia dynasty. Such a course had, In fa c t, been suggested not long before the congressional nomination In an a r tic le which proposed jo in t e ffo rts between the F ed eralists and Crawford to keep Monroe out. A fter a l l , the caucus trespassed against the people's rig h ts : " I t 1s the Caucussers who nominate, and the People are called upon to go through the drugery [s ic ] of conforming to th e ir e d ic ts . . . . This government 1s . . . a Caucus government." I t was also a Republican ra th e r than 78 a F ed eralist government. Not a ll Republicans, o f course, accepted the decision with equanimity. Gideon Granger strongly opposed the caucus nomination because he f e l t a southern P resident would, of a ll th in g s, Involve the nation In war In the Gulf of Mexico with more than one o f the major European powers. To avoid th is , and because he thought Clinton had the best chance to succeed, he urged the N ew Yorker to be a p re s i dential candidate, though th is plea had l i t t l e general Influence.79 78The Examiner. March 4, 1816, p. 177; March 11, 1816, p. 200; March 25, 1816, pp. 234-35. The F ed eralist opposition to Crawford can be seen In a rep rin ted a r tic le In the Charleston C ourier, March 22, 1816, p. 2. 79 Granger to C linton, March 27, 1816, De Witt Clinton Papers, Columbia U niversity. 253 A more reasoned p ro ject was mentioned by Lewis W illiams, an Old Republican congressman from North C arolina, bemoaned the fa c t th at Crawford declined to challenge the caucus candidate but hoped th a t some anti-V irginians o f the m ajority party might co-operate with some F ed eralists to sponsor a Cllnton-Snyder tic k e t against Monroe.80 This plan never gained e n th u sia stic support from a large number, Including the proposed candidate. In ad d itio n , a pamphlet appeared which discussed motives fo r opposing Monroe. Said by some to be a ju s tif ic a tio n o f the 54 who voted fo r Crawford In caucus, 1t spoke against the V irginia dynasty and Monroe, while expressing sorrow th a t the Georgian would not run d esp ite his fa ilu re to win the congressional nomination. I t seems obvious th a t Crawford could have had a su b sta n tia l—but almost c e rta in ly In su ffic ie n t—amount 81 o f support had he chosen to contest the decision. The most vigorous Republican p ro te st against the caucus nomina tio n , however, came 1n Pennsylvania, larg ely through the e ffo rts of the P hiladelphia Aurora, an Important an ti-ad m in istratio n Republican paper. An a r tic le mentioned In April th a t 1t was rumored a strenuous opposition would be launched ag ain st the caucus tic k e t, though D e W itt C linton, the candidate thought of by the d isse n te rs, had refused to co-operate. The Aurora continued I ts b a ttle , however, and 80W1111ams to Richard H. King, April 11, 1816, Richard H. King Papers, North Carolina Department o f Archives and H istory. 81 Exposition of Motives fo r Opposing the Nomination o f Mr. Monroe fo r the G fflce o f President o f the United S tates (Washington, D. C ., 1016), l - l z . N iles' weekly R eg ister, June 1, 1816, p. 217. 254 c ritic ism 1n June and July gave way In August to a recommendation o f the formation of an e lec to ra l tic k e t In Pennsylvania which was opposed to the congressional nomination. The early step In the plan was accomplished on August 12, when a Republican meeting 1n Lancaster County passed reso lu tio n s requesting the Pennsylvania Republicans opposed to the caucus meet In th e ir counties and choose delegates to a convention a t C a rlisle on September 19; th is s ta te convention would draw up the opposition tic k e t. Other local gatherings were held as the Aurora continued to urge the various counties to send delegates to C a rlisle and kept up the barrage on the th eo retical level by denouncing th e 1816 caucus as one Involving enormous In trig u es and usurping the rig h ts of the people. The Philadelphia assemblage on August 26 to consider the question condemned the caucus as un co n stitu tio n al and appointed delegates to the C arlisle convention, ft? among them the A urora's e d ito r, William Duane. 1 Yet th is e n tire movement made no real e ffo rt to present a lte rn a tiv e p resid en tial and v ice-p resid en tial candidates, despite vehement accusations by the regular Republicans—and even some F e d e ra lists—th a t the caucus opponents 1n Pennsylvania were seeking to e le c t C linton. In f a c t, though perhaps thinking fo r a moment of attem pting to bring 1n the New Yorker, the Aurora la te r said they were trying to elim inate the caucus system and candidly admitted th a t Clinton had no po ssib le chance to win no m atter who might choose 82Aurora, June 27, July 23. August 2, 3, 8, 12, 15, 21, 22. 23, 26, 257TFI6. 255 to support him. In th is atmosphere o f charges and counter-charges, the C a rlisle convention met as scheduled on September 19, but only eleven delegates attended. Undeterred by the minimal response, the gathering proceeded to pass resolutions against the caucus and to name an Independent and unpledged e le cto ral tic k e t. N o candidates were even mentioned 1n opposition to Monroe and Tompkins; one member of the new tic k e t, though opposed to the caucus, had s p e c ific a lly declared 1n favor o f the regular candidates. Even the National In te llig e n c e r fin a lly conceded th a t the anti-caucus tic k e t would vote fo r the congressional nominees. Nor were the d issid en ts seeking a union with the F ed eralists as In 1812. Indeed, many F ed eralists did not wish such an a llia n c e a t th is time: when one of th e ir papers 1n V irginia began talk in g o f supporting C linton, thus implying c o a litio n with the Republican d issid e n ts, another F ed eralist p r in t—th is one 1n C lin to n 's home s ta te —sharply rebuked the e rran t V irginians. Rather, the anti-caucus Republicans were using the Issue as a p ra c tic a l weapon to aid th e ir attem pt to regain power 1n Pennsylvania under the guise of a ltr u is tic a lly seeking the end of the caucus system: "The o bject o f the Independent tic k e t 1s not men—but p rin c ip le s—the fix in g the wedge 1n the caucus log, so th a t, on fu tu re occasions, the public mawl may s p li t 1t asunder." Though making an e x cellen t showing In P hiladelphia, the anti-caucus tic k e t fa ile d m iserably 1n the re s t of the s ta te and lo s t by a wide margin.83 83Aurora. September 7, 12, 13, 14, 16, 24, October 9, 10, 31, November 1, 4, 7, 1816. National In te llig e n c e r, October 19, November 256 From the viewpoints observed, the contest appears to have been even clo ser than the narrow 65-54 vote In d icates. Perhaps, then, Crawford was the President th a t almost was. But since Monroe was more widely considered as the lo g ical successor to Madison and Crawford was In a sense a tool wielded by anti-Monroe, ant1-V1rg1n1a dynasty p o litic ia n s , I t might well be questioned whether securing the caucus nomination would have won the e lectio n I ts e lf fo r the Georgian. As already noted, many o f Monroe's backers were determined to push his candidacy regardless o f th e caucus outcome. One observer remarked th a t the Secretary o f S ta te 's electio n did not "depend on a caucus nomination. The public a tte n tio n Is as much turned to him fo r the Presidency as 1 t ever was to Genl. Washington or Mr. Jefferso n , and he cannot be defeated by any machination whatever." While th is statem ent was based on vision through "Monroe-colored" g lasses, I t nevertheless represents the so lid support f e l t by many fo r the Vir g in ian . In ad d itio n , another commentator, a fte r p raisin g Monroe's sele c tio n by the caucus, reported from the West th a t he was more than ever convinced th a t "a d iffe re n t nomination could not have turned the c u rren t of public opinion In the Western country."8* The National In te llig e n c e r remarked th a t had "a d iffe re n t nomination been made, we believe th a t Mr. Monroe would s t i l l have been the choice of the 5, 1816, New-York EvPnlnq Post. September 19. P h ilip S. Klein, Pennsylvania P o litic s , 1817-1832: A Game Without Rules (P hiladelphia, TOW), 7B-8T.------------ ------------------------------ ^Jo sep h H. Nicholson to James Monroe, March 2, 1816; John McLean to Monroe, June 15, 1816, James Monroe Papers, Library o f Congress. 257 85 People." A N ew Yorker In siste d p rio r to the caucus th a t Crawford could not be elected even 1f nominated by Congress: "Let a caucus once nominate him who 1s not the fa v o rite of the people, and then 1 t w ill be seen th a t a caucus nomination does not make the P resident 86 of these United S ta te s." A Crawford victory 1n the arena o f the congressional nomi n atio n , th erefo re, might well have signaled the s ta r t of a p o litic a l melee between the caucus candidate and the h e ir to the V irginia suc cession. Though p redicting th e winner o f the p resid en tial sweep stakes 1n such a hypothetical contest would be d if f ic u lt, Crawford's chances would obviously have been b e tte r than th e non-existent pros pects he had a fte r Monroe was chosen by the caucus. Some congressmen, as already noted, had pledged themselves to support whatever candidate the caucus decided upon, and Crawford would lik e ly have received su b stan tial backing from these and others who f e l t obliged to respect the "regular" nomination. I t would seem safe to say, however, th a t the system of nomination by congressional caucus might have died a quick, ra th er than lin g e rin g , death and th a t the dawning day o f the so -called "Era of Good Feelings" would have been eclipsed by even more b itte r factionalism than a ctu ally developed within the party 1n the scramble to receive Monroe's m antle. In any case, N ew York and her collaborators fa ile d 1n th e ir bid to In te rru p t the reign o f 85 In te llig e n c e r, September 12, 1816, p. 2. 86 Jonathan Fisk to John V I. Taylor, February 20, 1816, John W . Taylor Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. 258 the V irginia dynasty. Post-caucus opposition to the continued reign o f th a t system was vocal among some Republicans, notably 1n Pennsyl vania; the anti-caucus Republicans, however, by accepting the reg u lar nominees, saw the summer of th e ir discontent fade Into the 87 autumn of the p o litic a l sta tu s quo. During the campaign, F ed eralists were not confined to specu la tio n s about possible d issid en t Republican candidates upon which they might agree. As 1816 approached the party seemed re la tiv e ly qu iescen t, but c e rta in Republicans f e l t th a t the opposition would make a brisk e f fo r t to run Rufus King, one o f the F ed eralist p a tria rc h s .88 The stepping stone to the p resid en tial ch air was to be the N ew York gubernatorial ele c tio n . Indeed, Timothy Dwight wrote King th a t th e ir only chance 1n the p resid en tial contest was to win control o f N ew York; w ithout th is achievement, the F ed eralists were fin ish ed . King was sh o rtly th e re a fte r—1n mid-February— nominated as the F ed eralist standard-bearer fo r the N ew York governorship, though he ran somewhat ag ain st his w ill and probably because o f such p la in tiv e c rie s as th a t from Dwight: the "only time to redeem . . . the Nation, Is now." Another veteran F e d e ra list, Gouvemeur N orris, saw the situ a tio n a b it d iffe re n tly . 8*Monroe and Tompkins each received 183 e le c to ra l votes fo r th e ir respective o ffic e s. ® ® F. N. Brown to John Clopton, November 25, 1815, John Clopton Papers, Duke U niversity. Jonathan Fisk to John W . Taylor, February 20, 1816; Ebenezer Sage to John W . Taylor, Narch 7, 1816, John W . Taylor Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. 259 tihlle acknowledging general pessimism among p arty members, he thought John E. Howard o f Maryland and James Ross o f Pennsylvania might form a p o te n tia lly successful tic k e t. One obstacle to th is s la te , however, was a fe a r th a t southern F ed eralists might not 89 co-operate because n e ith e r man q u alifie d geographically. But I t was to be King or no one fo r the F e d eralists. His slim chances were destroyed, however, when he slipped and f e ll a t the f i r s t m ilestone of the race by losing the New York gubernatorial stru g g le 1n the spring o f electio n y ear. Not feelin g very re g al, King observed: "I presume the fa ilu re w ill, as I think I t should, discourage the F ed eralists from m aintaining a f r u itle s s stru g g le ." Thus sounded the knell o f the sinking p arty. By November, King noted the e lectio n had been s e ttle d by the caucus and trie d to console him self, as had various other F e d e ra lists, with the view th at 90 the Republicans had taken over the major F ed eralist Ideas, anyway. The p arty made no formal p resid en tial nomination and ran electo ral tic k e ts In but a few s ta te s . Despite the absence o f sp e c ific d ire c tio n , the th ree successful s la te s —M assachusetts, Connecticut and Delaware—gave th e ir votes unanimously to King. He was, to para- pQ ’ Dwight to King, February 10, 1816; James Kent to King, February 16, 1816; Dwight to King, February 16, 1816; King to H. Bleeker e t a l . , March 2, 1816; Morris to King, March 15, 1816. 1n Charles ITTKTng, e d ., Life and Correspondence o f Rufus King (6 v o ls ., N ew York, 1894-1900), V,~503, 508, 511-12, 522; VI,' IF. ® ® K 1ng to Christopher Gore, M ay 15, 1816; King to Edward King, June 26, 1816, King to Gore, November 5, 1816; Gore to King, December 20, 1816, 1n C. R. King, Life and Correspondence o f Rufus King, V, 535; VI, 27, 32, 37-38. 260 phrase a remark about a somewhat more famous American, " f i r s t In war, 91 f i r s t In peace, and f i r s t 1n the hearts of the F ed e ra lists." Thus, d esp ite considerable rough w ater, the V irginia Dynasty and the caucus nomination continued to dominate the p resid en tial scene, while the F ed eralists began to view more r e a lis tic a lly the f a i t accompli o f th e ir p o litic a l demise on a national scale. ^New York Commercial A d vertiser, September 27, 1816, p. 2; November 7, 1816, p. 2; November l l , T816, p. 2; November 12, 1816, p. 2. King received 34 votes fo r P resid en t, while the F ed eralist votes fo r the second o ffic e were s p li t : John E. Howard o f Maryland, 22; James Ross o f Pennsylvania, 5; John Marshall o f V irginia, 4; and Robert G. Harper o f Maryland, 3. Roseboom, A H istory of P resid en tial E lectio n s, 74-75. CHAPTER V T H E C A U C U S W A N E S: 1820 and 1824 The Era of Good Feelings—despite the many In tra -p a rty bad fe e lin g s—contributed sig n ific a n tly to the downfall o f the congres sional nominating caucus. Bom o f the Increasing In te n sity o f party struggles and the consequent need fo r p arty u n ity , the caucus found l i t t l e o f I ts o rig in al reason fo r existence when the two-pronged American p o litic a l system gave way to a framework dominated from the national perspective by the Democratlc-Republleans alone. The Feder a l i s t s , having em itted 1n 1816 th e ir dying—and In e ffe ctu a l—gasp 1n terms o f challenging for the presidency, no longer provided the th re a t which helped to so lid ify the reigning Republicans. Subsequent caucus nominations could only be viewed as Instruments of personal rath er than p arty p o litic s . But the In e rtia o f tra d itio n 1s such th a t, bar ring the Impetus o f some p o litic a l shock-treatm ent, In s titu tio n s tend to fade slowly ra th e r than to vanish quickly. The system o f congres sional nominations was no exception.^ In the warmth o f the early years o f one-party domination on the national le v e l, however, even personal p o litic a l requirements appeared s u ffic ie n tly Insubstantial to cause the possible elim ination o f the caucus. Monroe approached the task of governing the country *For a detailed study of the declining years of Federalism, see Shaw Livermore, J r . , The Twilight of Federalism: The Disintegration of the Federalist Party, 1815-1836 (M nceton. N. J . . 1962). 261 262 with hopes o f absorbing many o f the remaining F ed eralists Into the Republican ranks, thereby elim inating party d iv isio n s. The new P resid e n t's tour to N ew England represented a step 1n th a t d ire c tio n , and the enthusiasm generated by his v i s i t led the Columbian Centlnel of Boston, a thorough-going F ed eralist paper, to effuse the descrip tiv e ly Inaccurate phrase which characterized th is chapter 1n American 2 h isto ry as the Era of Good Feelings. But despite th is seemingly auspicious beginning, the p o litic a l seers began looking ahead to Monroe's p otential successors even during his f i r s t term. A N ew York observer wrote—with the use no doubt of the fabled cracked cry stal b a ll—to the perennial contender, D e W itt C linton, th a t the public would never give favorable consideration to Henry Clay or John Quincy Adams as h eirs to the p re sid e n tia l ch air but th a t William H. Crawford had a good chance to succeed, though not so good as to p ro h ib it Clinton from carrying the Empire s ta t e 's banners 3 Into the co n test. Another N ew York p o litic ia n commented th a t there were numerous p o ten tial candidates, Including C linton, while y et another remarked about the la te n t In trig u es In Washington pointing to 2 James Monroe to Andrew Jackson (copy) December 14, 1816; A lbert G kllatln to Monroe, July 18, 1817; Richard Rush to Monroe, July 27, 1817; William Eustls to Monroe, September 3, 1817; John McLean to Monroe, September 12, 1817, James Monroe Papers, Library of Congress. Monroe to ------- (copy), August 5, 1817, James Monroe Papers, N ew York Public Library. George Dangerfleld has w ritten two worthwhile volumes covering th is period: The Era o f Good Feelings (New York, 1952) and The Awakening o f American N ationalism . 1815-1828 (New York, Evanston, and London, 1965). 3James Tallmadge to D e W itt C linton, February 11, 26, 1818; John Savage to C linton, March 8, 1818, D e W1tt Clinton Papers, Columbia U niversity. 263 A the succession. Adams, fo r Instance, said his po sitio n as Secretary 5 o f S tate made him a natural ta rg e t o f a ll o th er a sp ira n ts. Some, I t appears, even thought Clinton might challenge Monroe In 1820 or so, a t le a s t, Implied a sage p o litic ia n : Our M an Mountain [C lin to n ], say the canal men and th e feder a l i s t s , must be placed a t the head o f a f f a ir s . . . the campaign w ill soon open . . . Gentlemen w ill be spread a ll over the land, as small puffers . . . w ill puff In great s ty le and make much n o ise, with th re a ts and working to gain the Clodhoppers o f Pa* Cs1c1 The F ed eralists w ill a ll jo in the hue and cry . . . [but Tfiej many things I saw and heard while th e g reat war question was pending made an Impression upon m y mind, th a t * n e ith e r slangwhangers and speachmakers [sic ] can ever remove. Shades o f 18121 Some, Indeed, remarked about the evident trend toward elim inating the old party d istin c tio n s as many F ed eralists melted Into the Republi can party. Others viewed the outward signs of such developments as dangerously m isleading.7 Wrote one such p essim istic observer: The people are looking about to find what has become of feder alism and not being able to see or hear anything of 1 t, have 4 Rufus King to ------- , January 3, 1818, 1n Charles R. King, e d ., The Life and Correspondence o f Rufus King (6 v o ls ., N ew York, 1894- 1900), V I 95-96. Smith Thompson to Martin Van Buren, January 23, 1819, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library of Congress. 5 Charles Francis Adams, e d ., Memoirs o fJo h n Q u in cv Adams, Com- p rlsln g Portions o f His Diary from lT96 to 1848 {lz v o ls ., Philadelphia 1874^ 877], March’ 18,'IBTB, TV ,"EO T:-------------- 6Ebenezer Sage to John W . Taylor, March 15, 1818, John W . Taylor, March 15, 1818, John W . Taylor Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. 7J . Mason to Daniel Webster, January 10, 1818, Daniel Webster Papers, Library o f Congress. See also William Plumer to Clement S torer (copy), February 27, 1818, William Plumer Papers, Library of Congress. 264 concluded 1 t Is dead, honest souls! They have not y e t discovered th a t Democracy, weary o f wrangling, has taken federalism to wife upon condition she should wear the breeches—and pursue. . . the cardinal points o f her policy . . . . the two elements are now nearly amalgamated. Federalism planned a c ity which was to riv a l ancient Babalon [ s ic ] , dug Into the earth and burled the Presidents house and tfie~publ1c O ffices, where they have remained 10 o r 12 y e a rs, and now th a t these two quarrelsome neighbors have kissed and become frie n d s, they w ill be dug out . . . .8 Thus did one an aly st view the re la tiv e absence of party s p i r i t as the re s u lt o f a Republican s e llo u t 1n p rin c ip le , though not In name. Whatever th e ir views about the nature of the demise of Federalism as a th re a t on the national scene, Republicans became Increasingly aware th a t the choice of Monroe's successor would re s u lt from jockeying w ithin the p a rty , and the candidates chose not to w ait u n til the la s t man of the V irginia dynasty had embarked on the second leg o f his pres id e n tia l tre k . William H. Crawford seemed to consider him self the logical h e ir to the p resid en tial c h a ir, and he began to labor early to occupy the le a d e r's position 1n the race fo r the highest p o litic a l trophy. John Quincy Adams, another of the lik e ly candidates, com plained th a t Secretary Crawford was operating to his own In te re s ts and ag ain st those o f the Monroe adm inistration. There was even a rumor of a Crawford-Clay c o a litio n designed to oust Monroe 1n 1820, but Adams thought th is to be untrue, while a t the same time lamenting th a t the ro le o f Congress In naming the p resid en tial nominee subjected the Executive to unwarranted subjection to the le g is la tiv e branch. But no party had y e t repudiated a P resident from I ts own ranks, d esp ite the Q Ebenezer Sage to John W . Taylor, January 18, 1818, John W . Taylor Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. 265 Ham iltonians' attem pt to do so In 1800, and the contenders began to Q re a liz e they would have to be content to point toward 1824. Even e arly 1n 1819, one C lintonian foresaw th a t Crawford would be the Executive candidate among such hopefuls as Clay, C linton, Adams, and V ice-President Daniel 0. Tompkins The p resid en tial fie ld having been abandoned to Monroe fo r 1820, 1 t was logical to question whether precedent or n ecessity —caucus or no caucus—would be the order o f events. In January o f 1820 v irtu a lly nothing su b stan tial had been mentioned about nominations, and I t was obvious th a t no serious opposition candidate against Monroe was a n ti cip ated . A question ex isted about th e v1ce-pres1dency, however; there was considerable ta lk th a t Tompkins would be run fo r governor o f N ew York, but no one had as y e t been suggested as a replacement. Later 1n the month, Tompkins was selected to run In N ew York, thus creatin g a d is tin c t uncertainty regarding Monroe's running m a te .^ But the troublesome question o f Missouri statehood, f ru itle s s ly debated In Congress 1n 1819, remained u n settled In e a rly 1820, and th is problem was to disarrange the otherwise simple p resldental equation. The controversy was a p o ten tial th re a t to the Union I f 1t continued unresolved, and any President would have been precariously g C. F. Adams, D1arv o f John Qulncv Adams. February 3, November 27, December 3, 1819, l / , 240-43 , 451-52, 45J7 ^ M atth ias B. Tallmadge to D e W itt C linton, January 6, 1819, De W itt Clinton Papers, Columbia U niversity. ^Sm lth Thompson to Martin Van Buren, January 3, 28, 1820, Martin Van Buren Papers. Llbrarv o f Conaress. N iles' Weekly R eq lster, January 29, 1820, p. 376. situ a te d amid th e numerous cro ss-cu rren ts. Monroe supported the Missouri Compromise, while favoring separating the questions o f the entry o f Missouri and Maine Into the Union. His a ttitu d e was construed as In su ffic ie n tly oriented toward the South by some o f h is V irginia a sso ciates; the s ta te le g isla tu re apparently planned to hold an In formal meeting on February 9, 1820, with the Idea of supporting Monroe's continuation In o ffic e , but th is gathering was postponed. The le g is la tiv e caucus to choose an electo ral tic k e t did meet on February 10, however, though, a f te r the group was organized, fu rth e r news was received from Washington regarding the Missouri question and Monroe's feeling about I t . Considerable excitement developed and the meeting 12 adjourned pending re c e ip t o f additional Inform ation. One firebrand 1n the le g isla tu re In siste d angrily th a t Monroe might well be In a co n ciliato ry mood toward the question so his electio n would not be jeopardized but said I f the President signed a b ill outlawing slavery north of 36° 30' th a t the South should turn from him to a "man who has not committed him self to our foes; fo r such are depend on 1t the Northern p o litic ia n s ." He thought Langdon Cheves o f South Carolina would lik e ly serve as a strong southern rig h ts candidate I f the need 13 arose. Though the heat of the moment had ebbed, feelin g s among some 12 Abner Lacock to James Monroe, January 30, 1820; Charles E verett to James Monroe, February 9, 1820, James Monroe Papers, Library o f Congress. James Monroe to James Barbour, February 3, 1820, James Barbour Papers, N ew York Public Library. N iles' Weekly R eg ister, February 19, 1820, p. 425. 13 Henry S t. George Tucker to James Barbour, February 11, 1820, James Barbour Papers, N ew York Public Library. 267 remained Intense. A new le g is la tiv e caucus was scheduled fo r February 17, and one member thought the clamor had subsided so fu lly th a t he expected the le g isla tu re to voice no opposition to Monroe. But George Hay, Monroe's son-in-law , wrote from Richmond th a t the V irginia le g is la to rs went Into caucus under the Impression th a t the President would veto any compromise re s tr ic tin g slavery and advised him to do so le s t h is southern support co llap se. In any case, the le g is la tiv e meeting endorsed Monroe. Spencer Roane spoke the feelin g o f those much con cerned w ith the South's p o sitio n when he observed th a t "we p refer him to any o th er fo r P resid en t, but would not s a c rific e our Consti tu tio n o r risque [s ic ] our safety to ensure his e le c tio n ." In sh o rt, though the ta lk o f "Indignantly opposing" Monroe's re -e le ctio n had fa ile d to carry the day, th ere was considerable concern 1n some 14 c irc le s . Monroe apparently gave heed to George Hay's Injunction, at le a s t tem porarily, fo r he drafted a veto message; he subsequently re tre a te d from th is p o sitio n and on March 6 signed the Missouri Enabling B ill. The adverse opinion 1n the South was fa r less than Hay had p red icted , not even approaching a serious dump Monroe movement. N iles' Weekly R egister had been accurate 1n I ts p red ictio n th a t V irginia would support the President regardless of how the Missouri dilemma was 14 Charles Yancey to James Barbour, February 17, 1820; Spencer Roane to James Barbour, February 19, 1820, In "Missouri Compromise. L etters to James Barbour, Senator o f V irginia 1n the Congress o f the United S ta te s," Will1am and Mary College Q uarterly, F irs t S erie s, X (Ju ly , 1901), 16^T?n George Hay to Monroe, February 17, 1820, James Monroe Papers, L1br«py o f Congress. J . Barbour to James Madison, February 10, 1820, James Madison Papers, Library o f Congress. N iles' Weekly R eg ister. February 19, 1820, p. 425; February 26, 1820, p. 44l. 268 resolved . 15 The Missouri problem s tir re d the p o litic a l waters 1n Washington as well as Richmond. Amid ta lk of disunion, 1t was rumored In early February th a t a caucus of congressmen from the free s ta te s would meet to nominate a candidate opposed to Monroe,16 E ditor N iles o f the R egister noted th a t some members f e l t the Missouri question might well cause a man o ther than the V irginia Incunbent to be chosen fo r the p resid en tial c h air. He thought such a development might happen and te n ta tiv e ly offered h is support to such a movement.17 There was also ta lk th a t Rufus King and D e W1tt Clinton hoped to use Missouri as a p o litic a l foo tb all to bounce them Into power, but no doubt n eith er had any la stin g hopes to th is e ffe c t. The a lte ra tio n s envisioned thus fa ile d to m a te ria liz e , and no su b stan tial e ffo rts were made toward such a g o a l.18 15Harry A m m on has noted th a t when the I n itia l shock of Monroe's a ttitu d e wore o f f, the Richmond Junto, though scarcely In love with the P resid en t, concluded they re a lly could not turn with any hope of success to another candidate and hence supported the V irginian. See Ammon, "The Richmond Junto, 1800-1824," The V irginia Magazine o f H istory and Biography, LXI (October, 1953), 412-14. see also D angerfleld, The Awakening o f American Nationalism , 125-27. 18Heniy Clay to Martin 0. Hardin, February 5, 1820, 1n James F. Hopkins and Mary W . M . Hargreaves, e d s ., The Papers o f Henry Clay (10 v o ls ., Lexington, Ky*. 1959—) , I I , 775. l7Hezek1ah Niles to William D arlington, February 12, 1820, William Darlington Papers, Library o f Congress. 18John Tyler to Henry C u rtis, February 5, 1820, John Tyler Papers, Library o f Congress. Thomas Jefferso n to James Monroe, March 3, 1820, James Monroe Papers, Library o f Congress. C. F. Adams, Diary o f John Quincy Adams, March 25, 1820, V, 38. 269 The f ie ld was obviously c le a r fo r Monroe's re -e le c tio n , and any congressional caucus nomination would contribute l i t t l e except 1n terms o f providing the tra d itio n a l sanction o f th e party leaders In Washing ton. Only the v ice-p resid en tial question furnished any meaningful reason fo r a caucus: Tompkins was 1n the N ew York gubernatorial race and hence might vacate the second o ffic e 1n the Federal establishm ent. 19 Henry Clay was mentioned as a lik e ly s u b stitu te . Such were the c ir cumstances when Samuel Smith Issued a n o tice on April 4 requesting Republicans and o th er members who saw f i t to attend a caucus on the evening o f April 8 In the House of Representatives to consider the propriety o f making nominations. Smith said he had been asked to call th is meeting by a number o f congressmen from various p a rts of the 20 nation. Secretary of S tate Adams complained th a t there must be some Intrigues afo o t, because there was "no o sten sib le Intention to oppose the re-elec tio n o f Mr. Monroe . . . . Every attem pt to form a new fixed opposition party has fa ile d . But the V1ce-Pres1dency 1s to call things by th e ir proper names, In the m arket." Adams f e l t th a t Tompkins Intended to keep the second o ffic e I f he lo s t out 1n N ew York, despite the wish o f a m ajority of his s ta te 's delegation to oust him. Clay reportedly desired the vice-presidency, and Samuel Smith was supposedly a ttra c te d to such a game by the prospect of C lay's leaving a vacant House speakership to which Smith had pretensions. Thus, thought Adams, 19 Clay to Jonathan R ussell, April 10, 1820, In Hopkins and Hargreaves, Papers o f Clay. I I , 820. ?o N a tio n a l I n t e l l i g e n c e r , A p ril 5 , 1820. 270 the real purpose of the caucus was to name Clay as Monroe's running m a te .A d a m s Implied his disapproval o f th e caucus, but M iles' R egister publicly objected to I t on the grounds th a t the In s titu tio n might grow Into a dangerous d ic ta tio n to the people.22 With the caucus call before them, th e various congressional delegations had to decide whether they should attend and, I f so, what course to follow . O n the evening o f April 6 , the North C arolinians met and determined to stay away from th e caucus. In fa c t, th is delegation took the lead 1n the boycott movement because they f e l t , as did Adams, th a t "there was something ro tte n In Denmark." A fter hearing o f North C aro lin a's d ecision, the V irg in ia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts deleg atio n s, among o th ers, met and made sim ilar decisions. The primary reason North Carolina acted In the negative concerned the man they ex pected would have been named fo r V ice-President: Clay, they thought, would have been nominated and th is probably would have Injured Tompkins In h is race fo r governor as well as ruining his chances to remain In the second o ffic e 1n case De W itt Clinton won 1n N ew York. Even a nomination o f Tompkins would have been unwelcome a t th is time because the party would then be faced with choosing a new contender I f Tompkins were chosen fo r the Statehouse. They would p refer Nathaniel Macon o f North Carolina fo r V ice-President but feared 1t would be necessary to leave the o ffic e to another man from th e North. In te restin g ly 21 “ Louisa C. Adams to John Adams, J r . , April 7, 1820, Adams Family Papers, Massachusetts H isto rical Society. C. F. Adams, Diary o f John Quincy Adams. April 6, 1820, V, 57-59. 22N11es* Weekly R e g is te r . A p ril 8 , 1820, p . 97. 271 enough, the C arolinian reported th a t Crawford's friends would also oppose a congressional nomination by reason o f th e ir wish to prevent Clay from obtaining the vice-presidency, an o ffic e which would give him an advantage over th e ir ch ief fo r the e le c tio n of 1824. The 23 prospects fo r a successful caucus were bleak, Indeed. The appointed n ig h t arrived with the accompaniment of a driving ra in . The determ ination of many to avoid the meeting 1n any case, plus the bad weather reduced the attendance to about 50 members. A fter Hugh Nelson, one o f the two V irginians p resen t, was selected as chairman, Richard M . Johnson offered a reso lu tio n th a t I t was Inexpe d ie n t fo r the caucus to make any nominations. This motion passed unanimously, and the meeting adjourned sine d ie . 24 As one commentator remarked, the caucus had "evaporated In smoke."*® There were various facto rs which contributed to the m iscarriage o f the caucus. Clay complained th a t the meeting fa ile d because o f the heavy p re c ip ita tio n , plus the p re c ip ita te heaviness of the frien d s of riv a l candidates to the succession, who were unwilling to perm it him the advantage o f run ning fo r the f i r s t p riz e In 1824 from the vantage point of the vice- presidency. The s t i l l undecided N ew York e le ctio n also contributed to *®Thomas S e ttle to B a rtle tt Yancey, April 8 , 1820, B a rtle tt Yancey Papers, Southern H istorical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. 2*N11es'Weekly R eg ister, April 15, 1820, p. 113. C. F. Adams, Diary ofHlohn Quincy Adams, April 9, 1820, V, 60-61. *®Sm1th Thompson to Martin Van Buren, April 9, 1820, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library o f Congress. 272 the m eeting's d ecisio n .2® One congressman commented th a t while some members wanted to nominate Clay fo r V ice-President with the hope of Influencing the N ew York e le c tio n , some from the South opposed naming him because o f the possible repercussions o f the geographical o rien ta tio n of a Monroe-Clay tic k e t In th is c r itic a l moment of sectional suspicion. Along th is lin e , an a r tic le by a Pennsylvania congressman appeared on April 8 In the Washington City Gazette which attacked the c a llin g o f a caucus and warned Monroe's friends th a t 1f both p re si d en tial and v ice-p resid en tial nominees were from slave-holding s ta te s , 27 an opposition would be raised against the P re sid en t's re -e le c tio n . The abortive caucus doubtless encouraged I ts opponents. Declaring I ts pleasure a t the fa ilu re o f the m eeting, N iles' R egister charac teriz e d the caucus as "an unwarrantable method of attem pting to Impose O O a President and V ice-President on the people o f the United S ta te s." ° The Richmond Enquirer remarked: "The p is to l, I t seems, missed f ir e a t Washington—the gunpowder being p a rtia lly damped by a very heavy ra in . . . . [the caucus] was a t th is time so unnecessary th a t the f a i l ure 1s a subject o f almost universal congratulation." The Enquirer 2®Clay to Jonathan R ussell, April 10, 1820; Clay to A m os Kendall, April 16, 1820, In Hopkins and Hargreaves Papers o f Clay, I I , 820, 823-24. 2^W11l1am Plumer, J r . , to Plumer, S r ., April 10, 11, 1820, 1n E verett S. Brown, e d ., The Missouri Compromises and P resid en tial P o litic s , 1820-1825, from the L etters o f William Plumer, J r . , Repre se n ta tiv e from N ew Hampshire (S t. Louis, 1926), 48, 5o. H ereinafter cited as the L etters o f William Plumer. J r . 28N 1 le s ' Weekly R e g i s te r . A p ril 1 5 , 1820, p . 113. 273 29 viewed the caucus with somewhat more favor In 1824. 7 The collapse o f the congressional nominating system In 1820 did not end the v ice-p resid en tial question, however. Nathaniel Macon, reporting w ith considerable s a tis fa c tio n th a t the caucus was dead, f e lt th a t I f Tompkins were elected 1n N ew York, th ere would be sharp s k ir mishing 1n Washington regarding the man to run with Monroe; Henry Clay would have been one o f the avid contenders. But Clinton triumphed 1n the Empire s ta te , and the Monroe-Tompklns marriage was to be prolonged, th is time w ithout b en efit of caucus.30 Though the path to the goal was now unobstructed, some of Monroe's teammates were less than e n th u siastic In th e ir support. Clay In sisted th ere was much lack of confidence 1n Monroe: "Whilst the bosom o f th e Waters 1s smooth and calm a ll beneath Is tu rb id and ag itated . Never was there a ch ief m agistrate who seems to have more confidence, and fo r whom there 1s less a ffe c tio n ." 3^ Nathaniel Macon reported much the same th in g .33 20R1chmond Enquirer quoted 1n N iles' R eqlster, October 2, 1824, p . 6 6 . 3*hacon to B a rtle tt Yancey, April 19, June 20, 1820, B a rtle tt Yancey Papers, Southern H istorical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. Rufus King thought a Tompkins win 1n N ew York might have occasioned a caucus to nominate h is successor. King to Jeremiah Mason, M ay 4, 1820, 1n C. R. King, Life and Correspondence o f Rufus King. VI, 337. 3^C1ay to Jonathan R ussell, April 10, 1820, In Hopkins and Hargreaves, Papers o f Clay, I I , 810. 32Macon to B a rtle tt Yancey, April 10, 1820, B a rtle tt Yancey Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. 274 S pecific opposition was minimal. The F e d eralists, o f course, had given up a ll hopes o f united action as a p arty . A n a n ti-sla v e ry e le c to ra l tic k e t opposed to Monroe and Tompkins was formed fo r Pennsylvania a t a Philadelphia meeting on October 21, but I t was pledged to no p a rtic u la r candidates and had no hope of success. A n opposition s la te of e lec to rs was also formed 1n Connecticut, and a C lintonian tic k e t was put before the N ew York le g is la tu re . Such e ffo rts made no pro g ress. The only ele c to ra l vote c a st against Monroe was by William Plumer o f N ew Hampshire, who frankly thought Monroe and Tompkins both fe ll sh o rt o f his standards. Because of th is and with the Idea of expressing h is favor toward John Quincy Adams fo r the e lec tio n of 1824, Plumer ca st h is b a llo t fo r Adams and Richard Rush. Various other e le c to rs , Including some F e d e ra lists, expressed th is disapproval of Monroe's adm inistration by castin g eig h t v ice-p resid en tial votes fo r Richard Stockton, four fo r Daniel Rodney, and one fo r Robert G. Harper. Monroe triumphed d ecisiv ely with ra th e r lukewarm support only because he was the Incumbent 1n a tem porarily one-party p o litic a l system b u ilt fo r two p a rtie s : h is "nomination" and th a t o f Tompkins were taken fo r 32 granted and ex isted e s se n tia lly by d e fau lt. 32N lies' Weekly R egister. October 28, November 11, 18, 1820, pp. 129, 169, 190-91. Charles S. Sydnor, "The One-Party Period In American H istory." American H isto rical Review, LI (A p ril, 1946), 440. Jabez D. Hammond, The H istory o f P o litic a l P arties 1n the S tate o f N ew York (2 v o ls ., Cooperstown, n. y . , 184ZJ, I , 640. William Plumer to William Plumer, J r . (copy), January 8 , 1821, William Plumer Papers, Library o f Congress. Lynn W . Turner, "The E lectoral Vote Against Monroe 1n 1820—A n American Legend." M ississippi Valley H isto rical Review, XLII (September, 1955), 250-7T James Schouler, A History o f the United S tates o f America (7 v o ls ., N ew York, 1880-1913), I I I , S ET ---------------------------------- 275 The p resid en tial horse race fo r 1824 had, as already noted, begun during Monroe's f i r s t term. The various hopefuls w ithin the Republican party had been shoring up th e ir fo rces, and now th a t the form ality of the re -e le c tio n o f Monroe and Tompkins was over, the fig h t fo r the succession could en te r even harder punching stag es. Secretary o f State Adams observed th a t Clay had been working against Monroe a ll along with the Idea o f rid in g Into power on a wave o f opposition to the Vir g in ian , while Crawford had been building h is own machine a t the same tim e. In f a c t, Adams la te r In siste d th a t the law passed 1n M ay of 1820 re s tr ic tin g the terms o f revenue o ffic e rs to four years (with pos s ib le reappointment) was a Crawford maneuver designed to aid the Treasury S ecretary 's progress by Increasing his control of patronage. To Adams, a man whose supernal diplom atic c a p a b ilitie s were exceeded only by h is In fe rio r p o litic a l p e rc e p tib ility , stooping to use patron age to achieve p artisan advantage was In fra dignitatem . With these e f fo r ts , plus those o f the o th er contenders, well under way, Monroe became a de facto lame duck P resident perhaps sooner than any other occupant o f the White House. The echoes of h is second Inauguration address scarcely over, the l a s t of the V irginia dynasty became a p o li tic a l zombie, a liv in g anachronism—a t le a s t In the eyes o f many of 33 the p a rtic ip a n ts In the game o f p resid en tial p o litic s . The array o f p re sid en tial asp iran ts which had emerged before Monroe had completed the f i r s t year o f h is second term was Imposing, 33 C. F. Adams, Diary o f John Quincy Adams, March 31, 1820, V, 52-52; February 7, 1828, V l i , 424. see a lso Nathaniel Macon to B a rtle tt Yancey, June 20, 1820, B a rtle tt Yancey Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. 276 Indeed. In addition to Crawford, Clay, Adams, and C linton, as already mentioned, Secretary of War John C. Calhoun, Representative William Lowndes of South C arolina, Secretary o f the Navy Smith Thompson, and V ice-President Tompkins were serious contenders. Moreover, one of the stro n g est candidates, General Andrew Jackson, was not y et 1n the race, though there was a re la tiv e ly q u iet movement developing 1n his vehalf 1n Pennsylvania during the l a t t e r h alf o f 1821.3* The f i r s t nomination stru g g le to be resolved concerned the two South Carolina candidates, Lowndes and Calhoun. M any from th a t s ta te opposed the other southern candidate In the co n test, William H. Crawford, and by October o f 1821 1t was reported from the Palmetto s ta te th a t the mutual frien d s o f Lowndes and Calhoun would lik e ly feel Impelled to run one of them fo r P resident. In th a t event, th ere must be agreement between the two men. The Lowndes supporters moved f i r s t : a public meeting attended by a p a rt o f the members of both houses of the South Carolina le g isla tu re met on December 16, 1821, and nominated the congressman as the candidate who could unite the various sections 35 o f the nation. Calhoun said th a t he had been cool toward previous Niles* Weekly R eg ister, January 26, 1822, p. 338. Thomas P. Abernathy, Andrew Jackson and the Rise o f Southwestern Democracy," American H isto rical Review, XXXIII (October, 1927), 73. See a lso Rufus King to John A. king, December 21, 1821; January 1, 1822, 1n C. R. King, Life and Correspondence o f Rufus King, VI, 429, 434-35. Alexander Anderson to William H. Crawford, August 27, 1821, William H. Crawford Papers, Duke U niversity. Henry Clay to Thomas Dougherty, December 7, 1821, Henry Clay C ollection, University of V irginia. 35 Lowndes' possibly candidacy had been mentioned In early 1821. James Hamilton to Lowndes, January l i t 1821; Eldred Slmklns to Lowndes, August 13, October 26, 1821; printed c irc u la r, [December, 1821], William Lowndes Papers, Southern H istorical C ollection, U niversity of North Carolina. 277 requests by his friends and th a t his reticence had resu lted In Lowndes' nomination. But on December 28, 1821, a group from the Pennsylvania congressional delegation had v isite d Calhoun and asked him to run fo r the presidency, and he received sim ilar expressions from N ew York and Connecticut congressmen as w ell. This risin g current o f support from the Keystone s ta te and elsewhere swayed the C arolinian from h is resolve to stay out o f the race and to favor Adams; he agreed to stand a f te r some h e s ita tio n , feelin g th a t the Secretary o f S tate no longer had s u ffic ie n t backing In the North. Accordingly, Calhoun's candidacy was announced by his frie n d s, and he wrote various asso ciates o f his d ecisio n .36 H ow was th is In tra s ta te c o n flic t to be resolved? Lowndes assumed a modest outlook, w riting to one o f his South Carolina supporters th a t he f e l t there was no sentim ent outside and ra th e r l i t t l e Inside the s ta te to see him e le c te d . This estim ate appears to have been accurate on prospects outside his s ta te , though perhaps too modest regarding sentim ent a t home. But the South Carolina le g is la tiv e caucus nomina tio n might suggest th a t Calhoun would not capture his own s ta te and thereby in ju re his prospects elsewhere. Lowndes wished no such opinion to e x is t. Moreover, Calhoun had Informed him th a t he had consented to run, and Lowndes wanted his colleague to receive South C arolina's support I f 1 t appeared as though the War Secretary could 36John C. Calhoun to V irgil Maxcy, December 31, 1821, Galloway- Maxcy-Markoe Papers, Library o f Congress. C. F. Adams, Diary o f John Quincy Adams, December 29, 1821; January 2 , 3, 1822, V, 4^6, 474-75, 4/7-7o. Rufus King to John A. King, January 1» 1822, C. R. King, Life and Correspondence of Rufus King. VI, 434-35. 278 reasonably calcu late on winning enough e le c to ra l votes to win with the aid o f h is home s ta te . Besides, Calhoun was In the race to stay and had spoken with Lowndes before the l a t t e r received n o tific a tio n of h is own nomination; the congressman had responded favorably to the S ecretary 's candidacy. Though taking a d is tin c tly subordinate a ttitu d e , Lowndes refused to count him self out o f the race e n tir e ly .37 Though Calhoun reported th a t he and Lowndes had agreed th a t there must be no c o llisio n between th e ir fo rces, some of the congress man's adherents a t home refused to submerge his pretensions under C alhoun's.38 To many Lowndes men, Calhoun was a good second choice, but second nonetheless. They In sisted th a t the estim ates o f strength made by th e friends o f the War Secretary were exaggerated and urged th e ir candidate to re fra in from surrendering his p reten tlo n s—desplte the Calhoun fo rces' demands th a t th e ir e le c to ra l p red ictio n s be ac cepted and th a t the Lowndes group throw 1n the towel to provide a unified fro n t 1n South C arolina. I f the Calhounltes could s a tis fa c to r ily e s ta b lis h th e ir e le c to ra l claim s, many supporters o f the congressman were ready to switch over, but th ere would be s u ffic ie n t time to make the change w ithout having to decide the m atter In a cursory fashion. Some In the Lowndes camp seemed unw illing to e ffe c t the realignm ent I f I t could be avoided, however, and others urged him not to go abroad as he planned, fo r such action would appear to be an 37Lown4es to James Hamilton, December 29, 1821, William Lowndes Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. See also Francis Johnson to John J . C rittenden, January 18, 1822, John J . C rittenden Papers, Library of Congress. 38Ca1houn to Maxcy, December 31, 1821, Galloway-Maxcy-Markoe Papers, Library of Congress. 279 abandonment o f his claim s.39 Despite a report by William H. Crawford In M ^y of 1822 th a t a Calhoun-Lowndes conference had fa ile d to resolve the question, no doubt an accommodation would have been reached, almost certain ly In favor of Calhoun.*® But the question sh o rtly became ra th er academic: Lowndes died 1n October of 1822. South Carolina then nominated Calhoun a t another le g is la tiv e caucus held 1n November of 1823.*^ Concern about the caucus arose along with the Increasing In te re s t 1n the p resid en tial question g enerally. In la te 1821, one observer remarked th a t e ffo rts would probably be made to sound out the feeling of Pennsylvania and North Carolina before any nomination were made, but 1t was s t i l l uncertain whether the choice would be made by a caucus. I f no open nomination were made, there would s t i l l be a secret agree ment regarding whom each factio n would su p p o rt.** One active Lowndes backer now expected th a t a caucus would be held and confessed his i preference fo r such a nomination, though apparently unaware or unwll- O Q D. E. Huger to William Lowndes, January 7, 1822; James Hamilton to Lowndes, January 1, 9, February 4 , 1822; William Drayton to James Hamilton, January 7, 1822, William Lowndes Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. *°Crawford to A lbert G allatin , M ay 13, 1822, 1n Henry Adams, The Life of A lbert G allatin (New York, 1943) 581-82. ^Richmond Enquirer. December 11, 1823, p. 2. Sydnor, "The One-Party Period o f American H istory," 441. *^Nathan1el Macon to B a rtle tt Yancey, December 12, 1821, B a rtle tt Yancey Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity of North Carolina. 280 ling to admit th a t h is fa v o rite had no chance to be selected By January of 1822, there was ta lk o f e ffo rts to arrange a caucus nomi nation a t th a t tim e, but the sentim ent was s u ffic ie n tly against an early choice to prevent any such action from developing.** The year 1822 marked the additional progress by various serious candidates, while those destined fo r the also-ran category seemed to make l i t t l e su b stan tial advancement. S tate nominations often sig n ifie d the non-caucus contenders who would u ltim ately carry the game Into the p resid en tial fin a ls 1n 1824, and the emerging Importance o f s ta te choices played a prominent ro le In the movement against the congres sional caucus. Clay ac tiv e ly sought endorsements In various western s ta te s and launched a campaign to secure N ew York as an outside power base by suggesting an a llia n c e with the Empire s ta te which promised support from the West fo r one o f her sons as a successor to the Ken tuckian. P eter B. P o rte r, his confidant and p o litic a l manager 1n N ew York, however, rep lie d In m1d-1822 th a t I t was too early to e ffe c t C lay's nomination 1n th a t s ta te . Later 1n the y ear, Harry o f the West wrote again to express his confidence 1n success w ith the hope no doubt 45 th a t his glowing prognostications might s t a r t a band-wagon process. *^ D. E. Huger to William Lowndes, January 7, 1822, William Lowndes Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. ** Rufus King to Charles King, January 8, 1822, 1n C. R. King, L ife and Correspondence o f Rufus King, VI, 347. 45 Clay to P eter B. P o rte r, April 14, 1822, Henry Clay C ollection, U niversity of V irginia. P o rter to Clay (copy), Ju ly , 1822, Henry Clay Papers, Ohio H isto rical Society. Clay to P o rte r, October 22, 1822, P eter B. P o rter Papers, Buffalo and E rie County H isto rical Society. 281 But a ll these e ffo rts fa ile d to Induce the s ta te le g isla tu re to nomi nate him. Success was attain ed In Kentucky, though, as th a t le g is la tu re unanimously nominated th e ir fa v o rite son In November. The Missouri le g isla tu re also named Clay 1n the same month. The going was rougher In Ohio, however: a f te r an abortive attem pt 1n the l a t t e r p a rt o f 1822, a su b stan tial portion o f the le g isla to rs nominated Clay 1n January o f 1823 a f te r those opposed to such action l e f t the meeting. Later In the campaign, le g is la tiv e nominations came from I llin o is and L ouisiana.46 Andrew Jackson was also nominated In 1822, receiving the support o f the Tennessee le g isla tu re on July 20 o f th a t y ear. In te restin g ly enough, the movement 1n Jackson's s ta te to nominate him seemingly was begun In the w inter of 1821-1822 and carried on with local p artisan advantage as the goal rath e r than the national elevation o f Old Hickory. The group which Included John Overton, John H. Eaton, Felix Grundy, and William B. Lewis apparently took over an embryonic Jackson movement 1n Tennessee by February o f 1822 1n order to carry the s ta te electio n s ag ain st the Erwln-Carroll fa c tio n , though having v irtu a lly no hope fo r the General on a national s c a le .47 Indeed, Jackson's 46R1chmond Enquirer, December 12, 1822, p. 3; December 17, 1822, p. 3; December 24, 18ZZ, p. 3; January 21, 1823, p. 2; April 25, 1823, p. 3. Albany Argus, M ay 6, 1823, p. 2. National Journal (Washington, D. C.) December 17, 1823, p. 2. See also Sydnor, "The Old-Party Period o f American H istory," 441. 47Charles G rier S e lle rs , J r . , "Jackson M en with Feet of Clay," American H isto rical Review. LXII (A p ril, 1957), 537-44. John H. Caton to George Washington Campbell, January,29, 1822, George Washington Campbell Papers, Library o f Congress. 282 nomination was treated ra th e r scornfully by the other candidates and excited re la tiv e ly l i t t l e Immediate In te re s t from the nominee. Clay In siste d , fo r example, th a t the Tennessee newcomer would receive the backing o f no o ther western s ta te and thought th a t Jackson would be withdrawn when no support appeared.48 Crawford maintained th a t the unexpected nomination would have no e ffe c t whatever.49 Old Hickory was thus c a st In the ro le of a dark horse. I t was 1823 before Jackson became genuinely In te rested In going fo r the p riz e, h is m otivation resu ltin g larg ely from what he considered a betrayal by Governor Carroll of Tennessee, who was se c retly working fo r Henry Clay. In la te 1823, the Alabama le g isla tu re joined the ranks o f s ta te nomina tions by passing reso lu tio n s favoring Jackson. In 1823 and 1824, the track odds s h ifte d , and the Hero's p o litic a l tra in e rs f e l t th e ir entry underwent a color metamorphosis o f several shades. But despite the re la tiv e weakness o f the Jackson th ru s t 1n 1822, 1t was the year In which he was brought Into the race, and some Important groundwork was la id . Old Hickory's p o litic a l s ta r was beginning to r i s e . 50 Eschewing obfuscation, John Quincy Adams had hoped to play the ro le of an aloof statesman who lived above p o litic s but to w hom 48 Clpy to P eter B. P o rter, August 10, 1822, P eter B. P orter Papers, Buffalo and E rie County H istorical Society. 49 Crawford to Charles Ta1t, September 17, 1822, 1n J . E. D. Shipp, Giant Days; Or, The L ife and Times of William H. Crawford (Amerlcus, 6 a ., 1909), 234. cn N iles' Weekly R eg ister, August 24, 1822, p. 402; January 10, 1824, p. 291. D angerfleid, The Awakening o f American N ationalism , 219. the people would v o lu n tarily turn In th e ir search fo r Monroe's succes so r. By early January o f 1822, however, he was fin a lly persuaded to allow his name to be put 1n o ffic ia l nomination 1f h is friends thought 1t should be done. H e f e l t the movement, however, should begin with the Republicans In the Massachusetts le g is la tu re . Upon receiving Adams' consent, William Plumer, J r . , wrote to a M assachusetts congressman who had gone home and suggested such an action by the s ta te le g isla tu re . Such a nomination could have been arranged, I f necessary, but the Adamsltes chose Instead to make an agreement among the Republican members ra th e r than a formal proceeding. The Vermont le g isla tu re also refused to name the N ew Englander 1n 1822. In February, 1824, Adams was fin a lly nominated a t a mass meeting 1n Boston, and 1n June the le g isla tu re confirmed these proceedings; the o th er N ew England s ta te s generally followed the lead . N evertheless, 1n 1822 the Adams cause continued to grow.5^ Crawford placed h is hopes 1n his vast patronage as Treasury Secretary and In an expected congressional caucus. As already noted, prelim inary e ffo rts to work up a congressional nomination In ea rly 1822 made no progress. But the Crawford people refused to abandon the Idea In the face of opposition. The Georgian's p o litic a l momentun had been building since 1816 and by th is point many commentators viewed him as ^ National Jo u rn al, January 31, 1824, p. 2. N iles' Weekly R egister, January 31, 18Z4, p. 340. E verett S. Brown, "The Presiden tia l E lection o f 1824-1825," P o litic a l Science Q uarterly. X L (September 1925), 388-89. Albany Argus, M ay 28, 1824, P. 2. Richmond Engulrer, NovenAer 26, 1822, p. 3. Samuel Flagg Bemls, John Quincy Adams and the Union (New York, 1956), 21-22. the fa v o rite . Since he planned to re ly on the choice of a p resid en tial candidate by Congress, I t was logical th a t he would not a ctiv ely seek s ta te nominations, because they were said by some to be the most s u it- 52 able method o f replacing the national caucus. Later 1n the game, however, some s ta te le g is la tiv e nominations were brought to his aid to supplement the desired congressional choice and no doubt to stand In the gap In case a caucus could not be arranged. Georgia, Crawford's home s ta te , nominated him—though not w ithout opposition—In December of 1823, w hile a meeting o f Crawford men 1n the North Carolina le g is la tu re named th e ir fa v o rite 1n 1823 as w ell. O n February 21, 1824, the V irginia le g is la tiv e caucus rounded out the p ictu re by naming Crawford by a vast m ajority. Calhoun's prospects developed s u ffic ie n tly In 1822 to rank him as one of the se m lfln allsts In the stru g g le fo r the White House. During th is year he sen t a ra th e r steady flow of o p tim istic le tte r s to his Maryland supporter, V irgil Maxcy, though I t Is obvious In re tro spect th a t the C aro lin ian 's prospects were less favorable than he projected. He received encouragement of growing strength 1n Pennsyl- 5*John E. Calhoun to John C. Calhoun, December 28, 1823, John C. Calhoun Papers, South Carol1n1ana L ibrary, U niversity o f South Carolina. David Campbell to Edward Campbell, December 10, 1823; Ela C ollins to David Campbell, February 26, 1824, David Campbell Papers, Duke U niversity. John Randolph to Richard K. Randolph, February 25, 1824, John Randolph Papers, Library of Congress. John J . Carrington to W1111e P. Mangum, January 12, 1824, In Henry Thomas Shanks, ed. The Papers o f W illie Person Manqum (5 v o ls ., Ralelqh, N. C ., 1950-57), IV 1U5‘ .----- ------------------- ^ N ile s ' Weekly R eqlster, January 3, 1824. o. 274: February 28, 1824, Prm. 285 vanla, e sp ec ia lly , as well as N ew York, N ew Jersey , and Connecticut, and Lowndes' death 1n October cleared the way, as previously noted, fo r his nomination 1n November o f 1823 by the South Carolina le g is la tu re .5* Clearly defined sides began to emerge 1n 1822 regarding the propriety o f a congressional nomination. E ditor Hezeklah N iles, who was to be one of the most vigorous protagonists against the caucus during the campaign, marked out his course early In the y ear. Advising Congress to be more concerned w ith passing le g isla tio n than with President-making, he launched a fie ry Invective which c la s sifie d “King Caucus" as monarch o f a dub1table realm: "The p ractice Is not only In ju rio u s, but absolutely dangerous to the lib e rtie s of the country. 'As ny soul llv e th ,' I would ra th e r learn th a t the h alls o f Congress were converted Into common b ro th e ls, than th a t caucuses. . .be held In them." The R egister continued I ts opposition 1n the succeeding months as a prelude to the explosive and concentrated e ffo rts I t would 85 make In 1823-1824. O n the o th er hand, the Richmond Enquirer, fo r Instance, expressed a q u alified approval of the caucus system. The Enquirer mentioned a plan fo r a national convention but serio u sly questioned whether such an action would be adopted by a ll the s ta te s . 54 Calhoun to Maxcy, January 13, 22, June 9, October 28, 1822, Galloway-Naxcy-Harkoe Papers, Library o f Congress. Calhoun to [Samuel D. Ingham], April 5, 1822; Calhoun to Ingham, November 2, 1822, John C. Calhoun Papers, South Carollnlana L ibrary, U niversity o f South Carolina. 5s N iles' Weekly R eg ister, January 19, 1822, p. 321; January 26, 1822, p. 338. 286 S tate nominations might also be Implemented as an a lte rn a tiv e , though the unlikelihood o f th is method producing unified action brought one back to the caucus. The congressional system might well be the only way to prevent an e le ctio n by the House o f Representatives 1n th is 56 campaign Involving many candidates. Yet, In the minds o f some, the caucus had become Id e n tifie d with the V irginia dynasty and dominance over the p resid en tial q uestion, and the long standing opposition to these factors contributed to the growing disapproval o f nominations 57 by the n atio n 's le g is la tu re . The year 1822 was thus characterized by a narrowing race fo r the p resid en tial trophy. Those who were to be the main contenders picked up momentum—o r a t le a s t maintained enough strength to be c la s sifie d among the p o litic a lly e l i t e candidates. Prospects faded fo r the le sse r o f the "16 o r 17" p o ten tial hopefuls counted by N iles' R egister. A number of s ta te nominations developed, and prelim inary e ffo rts were made fo r o th ers. The b a ttle lin es over the caucus question, a stru g g le which would reach the w hite-hot stage In 1824, began to be etched In sharp r e lie f as the sides entered the so lid ify in g process. "King Caucus" seemed to be precariously near the precipice th a t would end his reign. The year 1823 dawned with Crawford, Adams, and Clay as the fro n t runners among the serious candidates. Jackson's p o litic a l s ta r , 56 Richmond Enquirer, December 12, 1822, p. 3; December 21, 1822, p. 3; December 24, 1822, p. 3. 57 Alexander Snyth to John Matthews, January 18, 1822, Alexander Snyth Papers, Duke U niversity. Michael U lshoeffer to Martin Van Buren, January 31, 1822, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library o f Congress. though placed In the firmament by the Tennessee le g is la tu re , had not y e t begun to shine b rig h tly , and some erroneously thought Calhoun had dropped out In favor o f Adams. The friends o f the Treasury Secretary again attempted to s e ttle the question by a congressional nomination about the beginning o f January, but th is e f fo r t fa ile d . Clay realized the Importance o f N ew York's votes and s ta rte d a lengthly correspon dence with P eter B. P o rte r, his manager In th a t area , designed to g et the Empire s ta t e 's declared support. Harry of the West f e l t certa in th a t while such a step would ensure h is success, N ew York's support In I t s e l f would not be lik e ly to guarantee victory to Adams o r Crawford. The flu id s ta te o f p o litic s and the number of p o ten tial competitors also provided f e r t i l e s o il fo r the seeds rumor to sprout and grow. One early rep o rt linked Clay with D e W1tt C linton, but the Kentuckian responded quickly to denounce th is prospect; 1n f a c t, Clay rath er early declared he would make no allia n c e with any other candidate In the ra c e .58 Crawford had the support of more members o f Congress than any o th er candidate, though le ss than a m ajority. His frien d s, having fa ile d to secure a caucus In early 1823, decided to w ait u n til the next session convened 1n December. Meanwhile, various journals and Individuals committed to the Crawford cause worked to prepare the public mind to expect a congressional nomination; s ta te nominations 58Clay to P eter B. P o rter, October 22, 1822; January 2, 3, February 2, 3, 1823, P eter B. P orter Papers, Buffalo and E rie County H istorical Society. Nathaniel Macon to B a rtle tt Yancey, January 25, 1823, B a rtle tt Yancey Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, Univer s ity o f North C arolina. N iles' Weekly R egister, January 11, 1823, p. 289. Richmond Enquirer, February 1 3 ,1 8 2 3 , p. 3. William H. Crawford to Charles Ta1t, February 16, 1823, 1n Shipp, Giant Days. 236. were deprecated as a course which would prevent Republican u n ity , and the supposed unifying e ffe c ts o f the caucus were ex to lled as the best means to keep the electio n out o f the House. The Albany Argus argued th a t regular nominations had "been so long acknowledged by the republican p arty , and have been of such p ractical value to I t , th a t 1t seems to be but l i t t l e e lse than a truism to speak o f them as necessary to the continuance o f I ts p ro sp erity . . . . regular nominations are the stren g th and power o f the p arty ." Instead of a s ta te nomination, the Van Buren party 1n N ew York put a reso lu tio n through a le g is la tiv e caucus In April which urged the congressional delegation to work fo r a caucus. The Richmond Enquirer, adm itting the objectionable nature o f the method, argued fo r a nomination by Congress on the grounds o f expediency: "Gentlemen may r a il as much as they please against a Congressional Caucus: Save us, 1f p o ssib le, from 1t . . . we do not much admire a caucus ourselves . . . [but] how can 1t be avoided? . . . . W hy r a il against 1t unless some b e tte r su b stitu te 1s devised?" This press also noted th a t th e ir e a r lie r suggestion of a national convention to replace the caucus had not been well received and In siste d th a t the p o ten tial e v ils of a caucus were s u b sta n tia lly less than those associated with a House e le c tio n . Some observers thought a caucus u n likely, however, and u ltim ately a ll the contenders except Crawford were united 1n opposition to a system o f nomination which cq they knew would operate against them. 7 ® 9R1chmond Enquirer, February 22, 1823, p. 2; March 28, 1823, p. 3. Albany Argus, March 25, 1823, p. 3. Isaac Munroe to John Bailey, April 15, 1823, John Bailey Papers, New-York H istorical Society. Smith Thompson to Martin Van Buren, March 17, 1823, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library of Congress. Calhoun, hoping to g e t his p resid en tial wagon Into a higher gear, would have been pleased by a nomination In his favor a t a Pennsylvania convention held 1n Harrisburg 1n the f i r s t q u arter of 1823, but the meeting was not called to name a p resid en tial candidate and consequently declined to do so. The Carolinian was to ld th a t tw o-thirds o f the gathering favored him, though, and he was encouraged by prospects 1n the Keystone s ta te . The War Secretary also thought N ew Jersey and N ew York might be persuaded to come out fo r him and proceeded to seek th e ir endorsements as w ell. Plans were la id fo r a paper In N ew York C ity , and one Empire s ta te man subsequently hoped to forge ahead by running Smith Thompson as the second man on the Calhoun s la te . Thompson was rath er unexcited by any scheme which put him less than f i r s t , however. Calhoun him self was o p tim istic about his chances to win the gold medal 1n th e p resid en tial Olympics.®0 As the year wore on, controversy about the proper method of nomination continued. Instead of a s ta te nomination, the Van Buren dominated le g is la tu re of New York held a Republican caucus which passed resolutions strongly favoring the naming of a p resid en tial contender by Congress and denouncing the "practice of making nominations fo r the o ffice o f President by Individual s ta te s [which] has a tendency to d istu rb th e harmony of the g re a t Republican fam ily." ®°Samuel L. Southard to John C. Calhoun (copy), March 18, 1823; Calhoun to Southard, March 19, April 9, 1823; Charles G. Haines to Southard, August 27, 1823, Samuel L. Southard Papers, Princeton U niversity. Calhoun to M1cah S te rlin g , March 27, 1823, John C. Calhoun Papers, South Carollnlana L ibrary, U niversity o f South Carolina. Calhoun to Samuel Gouvemeur, M ay 25, 1823, Samuel L. Gouvemeur Papers, N ew York Public Library. Calhoun to John E. Calhoun, April 14, 1823, John C. Calhoun Papers, Clemson U niversity. 290 The N ew Yorkers admitted th a t the congressional caucus had some fa u lts but In siste d 1t brought "Into one body as p erfect representation as could be expected." Inasmuch as Crawford was expected to be the caucus nominee, the p o sitio n taken by the Republican le g isla to rs o f N ew York represented the advantages o f the substance o f a s ta te nomination o f the Georgian without the disadvantages o f putting 1t 1n the form being employed by some s ta te s 1n th e ir attem pts to displace the congressional system .6^ As could be expected, response to th is move was mixed. Journals which were pro-Crawford, and hence pro-caucus, n atu rally reacted favorably to the N ew York ac tio n , while papers supporting other candidates generally Issued negative comments. The Albany Argus, the organ o f Van Buren's Regency, launched an Intensive campaign supporting the le g is la tiv e caucus resolutions and the desired congressional caucus: With the exception of such Individuals as s t i l l avow th e ir h o s tility to the democratic party and the old democratic p rin c ip le s, 1t 1s probable th a t every member from each s ta te w ill attend the caucus. The feelings and In te re s ts of every section o f the country. . . w i l l be duly represented; and the recommendation w ill be the re su lt of a free discussion and comparison of the claims of the several candidates. Nothing can be more ju s t and p ertin e n t. . . . Precedent, u t i l i t y , and p ro p riety , are among the affirm ative arguments for caucus d elib eratio n s and recommendations. I f caucuses are prohibited by the c o n stitu tio n , then were the nominations o f Jefferso n , Madison, and Monroe, v io latio n s o f th a t Instrum ent. Thus did the Argus Indulge In a man-sized portion o f propaganda and wishful thinking. Other Important Crawford journals also spoke ^A lbany Argus, April 25, 1823, pp. 2-3. C ircu lar, April 23, 1823, Carter-Sm ltn family Papers, U niversity o f V irginia. 291 h e a rtily fo r the caucus as the best means to resolve Republicans' 62 factionalism and to ensure a choice by the e le c to ra l college. By c o n tra st, N iles' Weekly R egister In siste d th a t a caucus for the electio n o f 1824 In view of the absence o f In te r-p a rty competition and the presence o f In tra -p a rty struggles would be a "p o litic a l Im possibility o r . . . co n stitu tio n al wrong." Under ex istin g circum stances, a nomination by Congress would v io la te the separation o f powers p rin c ip le . Such a course "would be an a c t o f d ic ta tio n to the people . . . . S urely, I t was never designed th a t Congress should make a P resid en t." N iles charged th a t the In te llig e n c e r's Gales and Seaton "are now lab o rin g , up to th e ir eyes 1n Ink, to bring about a caucus," and h is b a ttle with Thomas R itchie o f the Enquirer reached a new emotional peak when he argued th a t any attem pt to convene a caucus would be "a d elib e ra te attem pt . . . to overthrow the C onstitution. Other presses responded accordingly, depending on th e ir support of the respective contenders; the p ra c tic a lity o f American p o litic s was thereby c le a rly demonstrated. Regardless of how th e ir positions were phrased, the primary determ inant was personal and pragmatic s e lf - in te re s t: the vast m ajority o f papers and p o litic ia n s were candidate- 63 o rien ted and took the course th a t would aid th e ir fa v o rite . Though, as already noted, a ll candidates except Crawford would unite against the caucus, Calhoun was one o f the en tran ts who early 62Albany Argus. M ay 9, 1823, p. 2; M ay 13, 1823, p. 2; M #y 20, 1823, p. 2; June w , 1823, p. 2; June 24, 1823, p. 2; June 27, 1823, p. 3. 63N11es‘ Weekly R eg ister, M ay 3, 1823, pp. 132-33; M ay 31, 1823, pp. 194-95T 292 considered the anti-caucus course as p a rt o f h is campaign. The C arolinian recognized how desperately the Crawford forces were relying on the weight o f a congressional nom ination, but he thought 1n the spring o f 1823 th a t no caucus would be held unless Clay, then seemingly h o s tile to such a nomination, could be won over to the Crawford view. Though opposed to the system, Calhoun thought h is troops should fo r the moment re fra in from denouncing the caucus I t s e l f but ra th e r ought to expose the s e lfis h motives o f the Crawford party 1n advocating one. There would be s u ffic ie n t time to take a sp e c ific stand la te r 1n the campaign—as the other candidates did as well.*** The heat o f summer seemed to exacerbate the In te n sity o f the stru g g le between the pro-caucus and anti-caucus newspapers. The Albany Argus, the National In te llig e n c e r, and the Richmond Enquirer continued to argue fo r the c o n s titu tio n a lity and expediency of the congressional nomination, while N iles' Weekly R egister operated In the vanguard o f the papers opposed, In sistin g th a t the caucus, to the contrary, was both unconstitutional and Inexpedient. N iles claim ed, fo r example, th a t there was only one party now, w hile the Argus suggested th a t the F e d e ra lists were s t i l l p o te n tia lly dangerous. The In te llig e n c e r agreed w ith the Argus on the need fo r the caucus, but one Important point used by the Washington paper was the g re a te r need fo r the p a rty 's congress men to choose from among th e ir fiv e major candidates than had ex isted when, fo r Instance, Jefferson had been the obvious candidate 1n 1800. 64 Calhoun to M1cah S te rlin g , M ay 28, 1823; Calhoun to Samuel D. Ingham, June 1, 1823, John C. Calhoun Papers, South Carollnlana L ibrary, U niversity o f South C arolina. Calhoun to Maxcy, June 1, 1823, Galloway-Maxcy-Markoe Papers, Library o f Congress. 293 The prevention o f a House electio n and the harmonizing o f sectional and party In te re sts also continued to be major reasons advanced by pro caucus p rin ts . In ad d itio n , an a r tic le rep rin ted 1n the Argus contended with considerable ju s tif ic a tio n th a t those opposed to a congressional nomination f e l t as they did because of p ra c tic a l In te re s ts ra th e r than a b stra c t p rin c ip le s: " It ought to be expected th a t men w ill oppose a course not calcu lated to answer th e ir views . . . . the friends o f the d iffe re n t candidates advocate th e ir own p ecu liar way, measuring . . . opposition to a Congressional Caucus, 65 by th e ir chances o f success." There was some ta lk 1n 1823 to the e ffe c t th a t Smith Thompson, De W1tt C linton, and even Nathaniel Macon might be entered 1n the p resid en tial sweepstakes. Thompson him self mentioned h is prospects to Van Buren 1n March o f 1823, w hile h in ts about Macon appeared In June and J u ly .66 C linton, the most serious th re a t of the t r i o , received considerable a tte n tio n , p a rtic u la rly 1n the la s t p art of the year. But l i t t l e action resu lted from the rumors about these men, and the p resid en tial ring was closed w ith the hats of fiv e men: Crawford, Jackson, Adams, Clay, and Calhoun. The already complex e lecto ral equation was made even more In tric a te by the Introduction o f a new variable In September o f 1823: Crawford suffered a severe p a ra ly tic 65 Richmond Enquirer, Ju ly 1, 1823, p. 3. Albany Argus, July 4, 1823, p. 2; July 3, 1823, p. 2; July 11, 1823, p. 3; August 8, 1823, p. 3; August 15, 1823, p. 3; August 29, 1823, p. 3. 66Thompson to Van Buren, March 17, 1823, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library o f Congress. Richmond Enquirer, June 13, 1823, p. 3; July 1, 1823, p. 3. 294 stroke and h is health was a much disputed question fo r the r e s t o f the campaign. More than ever, the Treasury Secretary placed his hopes 1n securing the caucus nomination. ^ A N ew York le g is la tiv e caucus had 1n the spring o f 1823, as already noted, passed reso lu tio n s supporting a nomination by Congress. As the year progressed, local meetings became Involved In the same question. A number of such local gatherings 1n the Empire s ta te In la te summer and f a ll passed reso lu tio n s favoring the caucus. O n the other hand, sim ila r meetings In N ew York, Maryland, and Tennessee, fo r example, denounced the congressional nominating system. Local assemblages also concerned themselves with making p resid en tial nominations In 1823. Adams, fo r Instance, was nominated by a group o f his supporters In Armstrong, Pennsylvania, 1n A p ril, while Crawford was named by a local meeting 1n N ew York s ta te 1n the f a l l , as was Jackson by various groups In Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Alabama during the summer and f a l l . Sometimes the meetings combined th e ir nominations with expressions about th e congressional caucus; groups favoring Crawford generally urged the continuance of the reign o f King Caucus, but those p referrin g other contenders usually denounced the system. W hen feelin g about the caucus was considered without mention of candidates, there was a t a c i t endorsement o f Crawford by the meetings ^A lbany Argus, July 1, 1823, p. 2; November 28, 1823, p. 3. Henry Clay to J . S tu a rt, December 19, 1823, Henry Clay Papers, Duke U niversity. John C. Calhoun to J . S w ift, December 3, 1823, 1n Thomas Robson Hay, e d ., "John C. Calhoun and the E lection of 1824: Some Unpublished Calhoun L e tte rs," American H isto rical Review, X L (January, 1935), 288. N iles' Weekly R egister, December 13, 1823, p. 227. 295 supporting such a nomination, while those deprecating the congressional go method o f sele ctio n favored one of the other a sp iran ts. The Tennessee le g isla tu re launched what was probably the most a n tith e tic a l view o f the caucus as compared w ith the p o sitiv e opinion expressed by the N ew York le g is la tiv e caucus. In September o f 1823, Felix Grundy Introduced reso lu tio n s stern ly deploring th e system and requesting the Tennessee delegation to boycott any caucus. Grundy In sisted th a t 1t was to the In te re s t o f Tennessee and every small s ta te to oppose th is mode o f choosing p resid en tial candidates and candidly admitted th a t Jackson had no chance a t such a meeting. The Tennessee resolutions condemned the caucus as controvertlng the s p i r i t of the C o n stitu tio n , as being Inexpedient and unwise, as wrongfully committing the members to sp e c ific men when the House might well make the final d ecision, as v io latin g the eq u ality the C onstitution supposedly planned to provide fo r the weaker s ta te s , and as a system which was p o te n tia lly dangerous to the lib e r tie s of the people. In ad dition, the governor was d irected to send a copy o f the resolutions to the governors o f o th er s ta te s with the request th a t they be presented to each s ta te le g isla tu re fo r co n sid eratio n .6^ By the f a ll of 1823, 1t was ra th er obvious to many p o litic a l 68 Richmond Enqulrer, M ay 20, 1823, p. 2; July 1, 1823, p. 1; October 7, 1823, p. 3. F ile s ' Weekly R egister, September 20, 1823, pp. 40-41; October 11, 1623, p. 81; November 1, 1823, pp. 130-31; November 15, 1823, p. 167. Albany Argus, September 2, 1823, p. 3; November 14, 1823, p. 3. 69Henry Clay to P eter B. P o rte r, October 4, 1823, P eter B. P orter Papers, Buffalo and E rie County H istorical Society. Richmond Enquirer, October 7, 1823, p. 3; October 21, 1823, pp. 2-3; November 28, 18Z3, p. 2. 296 observers th a t a ll candidates except Crawford would work against a caucus. Calhoun's opposition to the system has already been n o ted .70 Jackson was also vigorously opposed: I think they w ill not be able to g et up a caucus and I f they do I am decidedly o f the opinion 1t w ill p o litic a lly put down the Individual they may hold fo rth to the nation. I am pleased th a t such 1s the feelin g of the people so fa r as I see 1t expressed th a t they are determined to assume th e ir rig h ts and m aintain them. Jackson subsequently remarked th a t he hoped the people would exercise th e ir rig h ts "and put In trig u e and caucus forever down. The perpetuation o f our freedom re s ts upon the people."7^ Adams' stand was less c le a rly defined. In 1819, he wrote a cau stic commentary 1n h is diary about the caucus, complaining th a t such a p ractice placed the President In a position o f "undue subserviency” to Congress and led to considerable corruption. Yet In November o f 1823, his diary remarks were m ilder. By the la s t p art of January, 1824, however, Adams had assumed a d e fin ite ly negative p osition 1n view o f the Increased opposition to the system expressed In many c ir c le s . At th is point the Secretary o f S tate was so firm ly s e t against the system th a t he "would not now accept a Congressional 72 caucus nomination, even fo r the Presidency." C lay's course was the most equivocal of a l l . H e had declared 70See footnote 64. See also Robert Y. Hayne to Langdon Cheves, November 28, 1823, Langdon Cheves Papers, South Carolina H isto rical Society. 7^Jackson to John Overton, December 21, 1823; March 23, 1824, John Overton Papers, Claybrooke C ollection, Tennessee H istorical Society. 72C. Adams, Diary o f John Quincy Adams. IV, 242; VI, 191, 237. strongly against the caucus system In August o f 1823: "The tra n sitio n s from a Congressional caucus to a p reto rlan cohort or h ereditary monarchy . . . are not so g reat as we might Imagine." In early October, he wrote his N ew York manager, Peter B. P o rter, th a t the caucus question would be decided on the basis o f personal In te re s t, though 1t ought re a lly to be determined by p rin c ip les. The Kentuckian even thought the Treasury S ecretary 's strength In the upcoming session o f Congress might be dim inished, and hence a ll candidates, Including Crawford, might oppose the caucus. Under such circumstances Clay thought a congressional nomination to be u n lik ely . But P orter subsequently advised Clay to adopt a moderate position and not to be p a rtic u la rly vocal In opposing the caucus. Harry o f the West took heed to th is advice, la te r denying newspaper reports th a t his friends had been among the most activ e 1n the a n t1-caucus movement. Thus, Clay pursued a highly pragmatic course, often carrying water on both 73 shoulders. Meanwhile, the e d ito ria l b a ttle over the caucus proceeded unabated. The debate, th e o re tic a lly a t le a s t, continued to revolve around such questions as the Inherent nature o f the caucus compared with th a t o f an electio n o f President by the House of Representa- 73 Clay to Francis T. Brooke, August 28, 1823, In Calvin Colton, e d ., The Works of Henry Clay (10 v o ls ., N ew York, 1904), IV, 80. Clay to P o rter, October 4, 18Z3; February 4, 1824, P eter B. P o rter Papers, Buffalo and E rie County H isto rical Society. P o rter to Clay, November 17, 1823, 1n Hopkins and Hargreaves, Papers o f Clay, I I I , 523-24. 298 74 tlv e s . Niles thought the caucus to be more objectio n ab le, while Thomas R itchie o f the Richmond Enquirer In siste d th a t the House elec tio n was worse. R itchie was esp ecially unhappy th a t N11es would o ffe r no fe a sib le a lte rn a tiv e to the caucus which would f u lf il the function o f concentrating p o litic a l opinion. But the essence of th is c o n flic t was s t i l l p o litic a l s e lf - in te r e s t: the Enquirer favored 75 Crawford, w hile the R egister opposed him. As the time neared fo r Congress to assemble, 1t was evident th a t the Crawford forces were more determined than ever to convoke a caucus, which they considered to be crucial 1n th e ir campaign. A showdown between the two sides was obviously 1n the o ffin g . I n itia lly , the plan —sponsored by Martin Van Buren and other Crawford s tr a te g is ts —was to convene the meeting early In the session. Some thought th is e ffo rt would be successful and give the Georgian a good chance of carrying the e le c tio n .76 Adams thought as many as 115 members might attend the caucus.77 But attem pts to bring about the meeting early 1n December were hampered by the la te a rriv al 1n Washington o f various Important pro-caucus p o litic ia n s , and the event reportedly was te n ta tiv e ly re se t 7*N11es' Weekly R egister, September 6, 1823, pp. 3-4; October 18, 1823',' p ' p T 97=5ff. 75R1chmond Enquirer, October 21, 1823, p. 3; October 24, 1823, p. 3; November 7, 1823, p. 3; November 11, 1823, p. 3. See also the Albany Argus, December 16, 1823, p. 2. 76[Skinner?] to [Edward Lloyd], October 7, 1823, Lloyd Family Papers, Maryland H istorical Society. James Buchanan to Hugh Hamilton, December 14, 1823, Hurja C ollection, Tennessee H isto rical Society. 77C. F. Adams, Diary o f John Quincy Adams, November 19, December 4, 1823, VI, 191, 226. 299 fo r around the middle o f the month. The National Journal c a u stic a lly remarked th a t they were "much su rp rised a t th is tard in ess o f the Managers, as the people are w aiting with g reat Impatience to know who 1s the man of the people, and how they must vote . . . . Absent 70 Managers are requested to hasten o n ." '° The struggle over a congressional nomination had many fa c e ts. The ambiguous nature o f Henry C lay's position on the caucus was c le arly demonstrated during the I n itia l jockeying o f the pro- and anti-caucus forces 1n Washington during the f i r s t p art of December. R. M . Saunders, one o f the leaders o f the Crawford movement 1n the c a n lta l, observed th a t Clay's supporters In siste d "they would n eith er seek nor shrink from" a caucus and thought th is a ttitu d e meant th a t the two factions would unite behind the stronger o f the two chiefs as 79 determined, he hoped, by a congressional nomination. Others also thought the Kentuckian would be w illin g to attend the caucus and to 80 abide by the re s u lt. Clay him self wrote th a t he f e l t reasonably confident o f winning a w ell-attended caucus and Indicated no p a rtic u la r 81 opposition to one. Saunders confessed th a t the Crawfordltes were ex- 78 Henry Clay to P eter B. P o rte r, December 11, 24, 1823, P eter B. P orter Papers, Buffalo and Erie County H istorical Society. N iles' Weekly R eg ister, December 27, 1820, p. 258. 79 Saunders to [B a rtle tt Yancey?], December 4, 7, 1823, Walter Clark M anuscripts, North Carolina Department of Archives and H istory. 80 Jonathan Russell to [William H. Crawford?], [December, 1823], William H. Crawford Papers, Duke U niversity. 81 Clay to Peter B. P o rter, December 24, 1823, P eter B. P o rter Papers, Buffalo and Erie County H isto rical Society. perlenrfng considerable d iffic u lty 1n arranging a caucus; he hoped Nathaniel Macon, a warm adherent o f Crawford but one o f the most notable of the re la tiv e ly few who opposed the nomination by Congress on p rin c ip le , could be persuaded to atten d . Macon's presence, he f e l t, would lend a g reat deal o f re sp e c ta b ility and Influence to a caucus nomination, and he urged th a t le tte rs be sent to Macon requesting him 82 to p a rtic ip a te . The North Carolina notable had w ritten Van Buren 1n M ay o f 1823 th a t a caucus was preferable to s ta te nominations, so possibly his aversion to p a rtic ip a tin g In a congressional decision could be softened. A number o f missives to th is e ffe c t apparently were sen t, and Macon wavered 1n his convictions of non-1nvo1vement 1n such a nomination. He feared, however, th a t a decision to go Into caucus would do no good and might well be In terp reted as a severe compromise of h is p rin cip les fo r personal reasons, thus In ju rin g Crawford ra th e r than aiding him. By almost mid-December, Macon, though s t i l l undecided, said he would not y e t commit him self 83 to attend. The Crawford lie u te n a n ts, Including such men as Van Buren and Saunder% were unable to ra ise s u ffic ie n t forces to arrange a caucus on December 20 as planned and determined to postpone the nomination u n til mid-January. Though the Crawford men were confident o f th e ir a b ility 82 Saunders to [B a rtle tt Yancey?], December 4, 7 , 1823, Walter Clark M anuscripts, North Carolina Department o f Archives and H istory. 83 Macon to Van Buren (ty p e sc rip t), M ay 9, 1823, Nathaniel Macon Papers, North Carolina Department o f Archives and H istory. Macon to B a rtle tt Yancey, December 12, 1823, B a rtle tt Yancey Papers, Southern H istorical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. to e ffe c t a nomination by Congress and f e l t I t was e ssen tial to th e ir le a d e r's chances, those opposed to the caucus were s t i l l working to prevent I t . I t was reported th a t the anti-caucus side had planned to bring the question of congressional nominations before the House o f Representatives with a view to seeing caucuses condemned by a se le c t committee. The supporters o f the Treasury Secretary apparently found out about th is scheme and were able to cajole Clay Into dropping the p ro je ct. In ad d itio n , Saunders continued to look upon Macon as a key weapon In the pro-caucus e f f o r t and wrote again to ask Important North C arolinians to attem pt to g e t Macon to call the caucus or a t le a s t to attend I t . Some commentators on the scene thought no caucus would be held , however, and 1t became Increasingly lik e ly by the end of the year th a t I f a nomination were made, the meeting would be attended by a m inority o f members. A s 1f the Intensive maneuvering between the factions on both sides of the caucus question provided In su ffic ie n t confusion, a rumor was launched 1n Washington on December 19 th at Monroe would be made a candidate fo r re -e le c tio n . There was no substance to th is re p o rt, but I t served to contribute additional p er p lex ity to the ex istin g p o litic a l jabberwocky.®* ®*Saunders to B a rtle tt Yancey, December 17, 1823, B a rtle tt Yancey Papers, Southern H istorical C o llectio n , U niversity o f North Carolina. William Plumer, J r . , to Levi Woodbury, December 29, 1823, Levi Woodbury Papers, Library o f Congress. George Tucker to William T u n stall, J r . , December 20, 1823, William Tunstall Papers, Duke Univer s ity . Henry Clay to J . B. S tu a rt, December 19, 1823, Henry Clay Papers, Duke U niversity. Rufus King to Charles King, December 12, 19, 20, 21, 1823, 1n C. R. King, Life and Correspondence o f Rufus King, VI, 538-41. N iles' Weekly R eg ister. December 27. 1823. p. 258. William Plumer, J r . , to William Plumer, December 27, 1823, 1n Brown, The L etters o f William Plumer, J r . , 90-91. While the caucus was pending, not a ll the action was a t Washing ton. Several Tennessee v ariety resolutions denouncing the caucus were passed by the Maryland le g isla tu re 1n December, and sim ila r motions 85 were Introduced In various other s ta te le g isla tu re s. Alabama also acted affirm atively on resolves disapproving th e caucus and nominated 86 Jackson as her candidate. Word came to one congressman th a t the "people are sick to death o f caucusses. . . . Strangle the Monster 87 without compunction o r rem orse.” Moreover, various meetings 1n Ohio censured the caucus, nominating Clinton fo r President and, In te re stin g ly enough, Jackson fo r V ice-President. A Republican gathering In Philadelphia likew ise resolved against a nomination by Congress. Though the anti-caucus forces In the capital were encouraged by such opposition 1n the h in terlan d s, they were also disappointed 1n the fa ilu re o f other e f fo r ts . A meeting 1n Philadelphia and one 1n Alleghany county during December had declared themselves favorable to the congressional system. The North Carolina le g isla tu re refused to accept the Tennessee resolutions as did V irginia and Pennsylvania. In fa c t, a caucus o f le g isla to rs 1n the Old Dominion met early 1n January and passed motions favoring congressional nominations, and reports 85 to Edward Lloyd, December 9, 1823, Lloyd Family Papers, Maryland H istorical Society. National Jo u rn al, December 17, 1823, p. 2; December 20, 1823, p. 3. Richmond fengulrer, December 23, 1823, p. 3. 86 N iles' Weekly R egister, December 20, 1823, p. 242; December 27, 1823, pp. 258, 26d. 87 C. W . to Daniel Webster (ty p e sc rip t), December 1, 1823, Daniel Webster Papers, Library of Congress. 303 from the Keystone s ta te Indicated th a t her le g isla tu re also favored the caucus. Another key s ta te , N ew York, was already on record In favor of the caucus.**8 The year ended w ith n eith er side confident; one prominent Crawford man, Saunders, even considered giving up the caucus ship. H e was d istresse d because a meeting o f North Carolina le g isla to rs had declared 1n favor o f Crawford rath er than agreeing to abide by the decision o f the congressional caucus. Moreover, Macon s t i l l refused to commit him self to the nominating p ro je ct 1n Washington, and th e ir hopes seemed to depend on a new endorsement of the caucus by the N ew York le g is la tu re , which would probably Influence Pennsylvania to do the same; w ithout these recommendations, the chances were slim fo r a fu ll attendance a t the caucus.88 By the beginning o f 1824, Adams, Clay, Crawford, Calhoun, and Jackson were the obvious contenders 1n the race to the White House, though some perceived Old Hickory's p o ten tial le ss c le arly than o th ers. There was ta lk of various co alitio n s among the respective candidates, but the c le a re st e f fo r t of th is nature was a growing dlsposlton o f the ^ Jo h n Tyler to James Barbour, January 4, 5, 1824, James Barbour Papers, N ew York Public Library. J . B. Thomas to A lbert G a llatin , January 5, 1824, A lbert G allatin Papers, New-York H istorical Society. Albany Argus, December 19, 1823, p. 3; December 23, 1823, pp. 2-3; January 2, 1824, p. 3. N iles' Weekly R eg ister, January 3, 1824, p. 273; January 10, 1824, pp. 291-92; January 1/7 1824, p. 308. 89R. M . Saunders to B a rtle tt Yancey, December 31, 1823, Walter Clark M anuscripts, North Carolina Department of Archives and H istory. Saunders to Yancey, January 2, 1824, B a rtle tt Yancey Papers, Southern H istorical C ollection, U niversity of North Carolina. 304 other candidates to co-operate a t le a s t 1n e f fe c t, ag ain st Crawford and the caucus. There was, as already suggested, a b rie f flu rry of a c tiv ity about th is time promoting C linton's candidacy; while of tem porary sig n ifica n c e, the movement was unable to make a serious and la stin g wave on the face o f the troubled p o litic a l w aters, though some o f his close supporters retained some hopes u n til about April of 1824.90 Those opposed to the e ffo rts of the Crawford phalanx labored d ilig e n tly . Calhoun believed early 1n January th a t there would be no caucus and th a t 19 o f the 24 s ta te s would avoid a congressional nomi nation In any c a se .9^ The C arolinian's supporters 1n the Pennsylvania delegation were esp e cially activ e In the anti-caucus movement, despite the s ta te le g is la tu r e 's refusal to pass the Tennessee resolutions opposing the congressional system. Led by such Calhoun men as Samuel D. Ingham, 14 o f the 20 1n the Keystone congressional delegation signed an address s ta tin g they expected any caucus th a t was held would be 90Henry S t. George Tucker to David Campbell, December 22, 1823, David Clmpbell Papers, Duke U niversity. James Buchanan to Hugh Hamilton, December 14, 1823, Hurja C ollection, Tennessee H istorical Society. Ebenezer Sage to John W . Taylor, December 13, 1823, John W . Taylor Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. Samuel Smith to Stevenson Archer, 1823, Samuel Smith Papers, Library o f Congress. Alfred Balch to William Polk (ty p e sc rip t), January 9, 1824, William Polk Papers, North Carolina Department o f Archives and H istory. Joseph D elafleld to John B ailey, January 8, 1824, John Bailey Papers, New-York H istorical Society. C. F. Adams, Diary o f John Quincy Adams, April 22, 1824, VI, 302. Albany Argus, January 6 , 1824, p. 2. B7 0. Tyler to D e W1tt C linton, February 2, 1824, D e W1tt Clinton Papers, Columbia U niversity. 9^Calhoun to Mlcah S te rlin g , January 5, 1824, John C. Calhoun Papers, Library o f Congress. 305 composed o f a m inority, since so many were opposed to I t . They de clared th e ir plan to boycott such a m inority m eeting, and a le tte r from one of the signers urged th a t h is s ta te take the lead 1n c allin g a national nominating convention. The s ta te le g isla tu re reportedly supported the stand taken by the 14 Pennsylvania congressmen. Later In January, Ingham and Thomas J . Rogers o f Pennsylvania held several meetings to form an anti-caucus organization In order to co-ordinate 92 e ffo rts ag ain st the congressional nomination. By th is time even Clay had c le a rly c a st his lo t with those opposing the caucus, prim arily because 1 t was evident th a t only the Crawford supporters would go Into the meeting. Harry o f the West trie d to walk both sides of the s tr e e t almost u n til the la s t: though now so lid ly 1n the anti-caucus group fo r pragmatic reasons, he continued to I n s is t his friends had not been cen tral In the e ffo rt against the system. But few fa ile d to see through th is subterfuge. The Clay men had met a t the end of January and decided they would boycott the caucus, and the word was o u t. A N ew Yorker Implied th a t the refusal o f the Clay faction to 93 go Into caucus had h u rt the Kentuckian 1n th e Empire s ta te . There were noteworthy e ffo rts against the caucus, Including substantial labor by Richard M . Johnson of Kentucky, a Clay promoter, as well as some by the friends of Jackson and Adams, and a co alitio n was ^ N iles' Weekly R egister, January 17, 1824, pp. 306-9. 93 National In te llig e n c e r. February 2, 1824. Erastus Root to Clay, February 9, 1824, in Hopkins and Hargreaves, Papers of Clay. I l l , 634. Clay to P eter B. P o rter, January 31, 1824, Peter B. P orter Papers, Buffalo and Erie County H isto rical Society. 306 even talked about where Adams would be run fo r P resid en t, Jackson fo r V ice-President, with Clay to be Secretary o f S tate and Calhoun Secretary o f the Treasury. This p a rtic u la r co a litio n agreement was never e ffe c te d , but an Informal committee representing the anti-caucus forces was formed la te r , d esp ite the Craw fordltes' e ffo rts to sow seeds o f suspicion and div isio n 1n th e ir ranks In hopes o f preventing such co-operation.94 This action was a cru cial blow to the hopes o f the pro-caucus forces 1n view of th e ir relia n ce on Pennsylvania as a key to unlock the door of success. The Richmond Enquirer sought to counteract the Influence o f the d eclaratio n by condemning Calhoun as a schism atic and by portraying the 14 as schemers: "Do you wish, lik e some other prophets, to verify your own predictions? D o you complain o f the very ev il you wish to create?" As fo r th e ir suggested a lte rn a tiv e , a convention, 1t was much too la te to arrange such a complicated a f f a ir fo r 1824.95 Other pro-caucus leaders attempted to stem the tid e o f opinion. Pennsylvanian A lbert G allatin was urged to come to Washington to work fo r the cause.9® In N ew York, Van Buren drafted resolutions 94C. F. Adams, Diary o f John Quincy Adams, January 24, 25, 28, 30, February 3, 4, 5, 1824, VI, 235-48. David Campbell to James Campbell, January 27, 1824, David Campbell Papers, Duke U niversity. 9®R1chmond Enquirer, January 20, 1824, p. 2. Qfi J . B. Thomas to A lbert G a lla tin , January 5, 1824, A lbert G allatin Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. 307 favoring the congressional nomination In opposition to the Tennessee p o sitio n . Van Buren In siste d th a t s ta te nominations caused not harmony but cacophony. The caucus was th e only cu rren tly av ailab le 97 means to reconcile the various p arty and sectional fa ctio n s. A Republican le g is la tiv e caucus was held, a f te r which a committee of the le g isla tu re drafted additional resolutions favoring a choice by Congress. Both houses adopted pro-caucus reso lu tio n s 1n the l a t t e r p a rt o f January. Though given only h a lf o f th e ir desired two-pronged weapon, the caucus forces had one consolation: h a lf was b e tte r than none. A n a d d itio n a l, but minor, encouragement appeared 1n the form o f the refusal o f the Rhode Island le g isla tu re to pass go the Tennessee resolves. One approach apparently considered by some of the Crawford men to Improve th e ir chances was o fferin g Adams the second place on th e ir tic k e t 1n return fo r his support o f the caucus. The Secretary o f S tate quickly re jected any proposals to th is e f fe c t. A sim ilar o ffe r had 99 been made to Clay, also w ithout success. But the opinion favoring the caucus which came flowing from 97 Van Buren d r a ft, [January 10, 1824?], Martin Van Buren Papers, Library o f Congress. go Niles* Weekly R eg ister. January 24, 1824, p. 323; January 31, 1824, pp. 340-41. Albany Argus, January 20, 1824, p. 3; January 27, 1824, p. 3. Richmond Enquirer, January 20, 1824, p. 1; January 27, 1824, p. 2. 99 C. F. Adams, Diary o f John Quincy Adams, January 17, 1824, VI, 234-35; January 2i>, 1824, 236-3/. Rufus king memorandum, January 29, 1824, In C. R. King, Life and Correspondence o f Rufus King, VI, 551. Clay to P eter B. P o rter, January 31, 1824, P eter B. Porter Papers, Buffalo and Erie County H isto rical Society. 308 N ew York seemed to give considerable encouragement to some of the weary Crawford lead ers, who had been forced to delay th e ir attem pt fo r a nomination u n til mid-February. In ad d itio n , they also began to consider nominating G allatin fo r the vice-presidency In hopes o f bringing Pennsylvania Into the Treasury S ecretary 's camp. I f th is plan were carried o u t, the cause would be su b sta n tially aided. More over, they thought a t le a s t 100 congressmen would attend the caucus and expected th a t the an ticip ated February meeting would be 1n time to Influence a Pennsylvania s ta te convention to be held a t Harrisburg on March 4 .100 The anti-caucus notables talked a t one time o f attending the meeting and voting against the nomination. But, by the end of January, th e ir loosely co-ordinated e ffo rts had functioned well enough to enable them to gather and to decide th a t th e most e ffe c tiv e course would be to boycott the caucus e n tire ly . A fter th is course had been charted, Calhoun accurately estim ated th a t not over 70 members would be p resen t, while Clay came even clo ser with h is prediction o f 68, though thinking 1t more lik e ly th a t no meeting would even be co n v e n e d .^ Pennsylvania had fa ile d to come strongly to the aid of the Crawford lie u te n a n ts; 1n i ah R. M . Saunders to B a rtle tt Yancey, January 25, 1824, B a rtle tt Yancey Papers, Southern H istorical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. ^ C alh o u n to J . G. Sw ift, January 25, 1824, In Hay, "John C. Calhoun and the Election o f 1824," 289. Calhoun to M1cah S te rlin g , January 30, 1824, John C. Calhoun Papers, South Carollnlana L ibrary, U niversity o f South Carolina. Clay to P eter B. P o rter, January 31, 1824, P eter B. P orter Papers, Buffalo and Erie County H isto rical Society. fa c t, a Republican le g is la tiv e caucus on January 10 had called fo r a convention o f popularly-elected delegates to meet a t Harrisburg to name a p resid en tial tic k e t, a move which was to be Inim ical to Crawford and th e congressional nomination. Moreover, the Washington friends of the other candidates had jo in tly determined not to attend the 102 caucus. The G eorgian's party thus faced February with the c le a r prospect of a m inority meeting and would have to hope the Keystone s ta te could be s e t 1n th e arch by G a lla tin 's nomination fo r the second o ffic e . Mixed returns came In from Maine, where members of the le g ls- 103 la tu re nominated Adams but declared 1n favor of the caucus. Neither were they to receive comfort from Macon, who decided d e fin ite ly to 104 avoid the caucus. Would Van Buren, Saunders, and the other Crawford leaders be able to e ffe c t th e ir plan to g et a caucus together 1n mid-February o r would the meeting have to be postponed again? Macon was c r itic a l th a t they had waited so long, thinking the gathering should have been already held 1n December. He urged his compatriots 1n the Georgian's cause 105 to a c t quickly 1f they meant to carry out a nomination by Congress. 102 C. F. Adams, Diary o f John Quincy Adams, January 27, 1824, VI, 239. N iles' Weekly R egister, January 1?, 1824, p. 307. Richmond Enquirer, January 27, 1824, p. 2; February 10, 1824, p. 2. Stephen White to Joseph S tory, February 8, 1824, Joseph Story Papers, Library of Congress. 103 N iles' Weekly R egister, January 17, 1824, p. 307. Richmond Enquirer, January Z7, 1824, p. z; February 10, 1824, p. 2. ^®*Macon to B a rtle tt Yancey, January 31, 1824, B a rtle tt Yancey Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity of North Carolina. ^°®Macon to B a rtle tt Yancey, February 1, 1824, B a rtle tt Yancey Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. 310 Opinions o f th is nature and o th er circumstances convinced the caucus promoters th a t they should Indeed Implement th e ir plan with dispatch. The National In te llig e n c e r helped to open the fin a l drive of the Crawford forces by several pro-caucus a r tic le s designed to b o lste r the fa ith fu l and to renew the wavering—1n hopes of securing a worthwhile attendance.106 Amid h o s tile p red ictio n s th a t the caucus, even 1f 1t could be h eld, would hurt I ts nominee or a t le a s t f a ll to help him, on February 7 the Crawford men's statem ent c a llin g a caucus fo r the evening o f February 14 was published 1n the National In te llig e n c e r. The notice was signed by eleven congressmen, Including Edward Lloyd, H. G. Burton, John Forsyth, J . B. Thomas, Mahlon Dickerson, W alter Lowrfe, and Benjamin Ruggles.107 The pro-caucus group had determined to nominate G allatin fo r V ice-President with Crawford In the hope o f Influencing Pennsylvania, d esp ite G a lla tin 's opinion th a t they should e ith e r omit choosing a running mate or name a N ew York o r N ew England man. One l a s t , but unsuccessful, attem pt was also made to get Macon to p a r tic ip a te .108 By th is tim e, however, the anti-caucus co alitio n had formed a committee o f 24 men representing the Adams, Calhoun, Clay, and Jackson l06Nat1onal In te l11qencer, February 3, 1824, p. 3; February 5, 1824, p. T . l0 ^Nat1ona1 In te llig e n c e r, February 7, 1824, p. 3. 108A. Stewart to A lbert G a lla tin , February 6, 1824; W alter Lowrfe to G a lla tin , February 10, 1824; Macon to G a lla tin , February 13, 1824, A lbert G allatin Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. G allatin to B adollet, July 29, 1824, 1n Henry Adams, Life of A lbert G allatin (New York, 1943), 599-60. In te re sts as well as the following s ta te s : Kentucky, Tennessee, V irginia, M assachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, N ew Jersey , M issouri, South C arolina, Vermont, Maryland, Maine, Connecticut, Indiana, and Alabama. Richard M . Johnson, Samuel D. Ingham, John H. Eaton, Robert Y. Hayne, Joseph Kent, Sam Houston, Robert S. G arnett, and Joel P oinsett were among the more notable members o f th is p o litic a l action group. This committee determined to take p o sitiv e actio n In view o f the Insistence o f the Crawford camp on holding a caucus: an a n tl- caucus d eclaratio n appeared 1n the In te llig e n c e r on February 7, the same day as the c all fo r the meeting was Issued. The c o a litio n committee In siste d they had canvassed th e ir colleagues and th a t 181 1 HQ o f 261 were opposed to a congressional nomination. 7 Not to be dissuaded a t th is la te date, the In te llig e n c e r countered the committee's figures by saying there were 216 Republicans 1n Congress o f which 16 were to ta lly opposed to a caucus on p rin c ip le . Using 200 as a base fig u re , the In te llig e n c e r In siste d th a t a nomina tin g meeting o f as few as 80 would be meaningful; the paper no doubt hoped th a t they were "thinking small" 1n th e ir attendance estim ate and wished fo r more than 80, which would have afforded them a chance to say the caucus response was g re a te r than expected. Moreover, they s t i l l urged a congressional choice o f a candidate as the only means to keep the electio n out o f the House and charged th a t 1f the other ^ N a tio n a l Jo u rn al, February 11, 1824, p. 2. National In te l lig e n ce r, February 12, 1824, p. 2. N iles' Weekly R eg ister, February 14, 18Z4, pp. 269-70. Nathaniel Macon to B a rtle tt Yancey, February 7, 1824, B a rtle tt Yancey Papers, Southern H isto rical C o llectio n , University o f North C arolina. 312 candidates f e l t they might win a caucus, there would be l i t t l e opposition to 1 t. The backers of the Treasury Secretary attempted to swell the caucus ranks by reportedly o fferin g the second spot to both Adams and Clay In retu rn fo r support a t the meeting on February 14, but n e ith e r man was w illin g to a c c e p t.^ 0 The Richmond Enquirer th ru st I t s e l f In to the fray as w ell, speaking ag ain st th e anti-caucus notice and accusing the signers of complaining about a s itu a tio n —the probable m inority p a rtic ip a tio n —which they themselves were helping to c re a te . Some public meetings also came to the aid o f the proposed nomination: a meeting 1n P hiladelphia, fo r example, spoke 1n favor of the system .^* Other responses were decidedly negative. The National Jo u rn al, an Adams paper, complained about the congressional system on several grounds. The m eeting, the Journal f e l t , would surely be small and co n sist almost e n tire ly of Crawford’s frien d s gathered sp e c ific a lly to nominate th e ir c h ie f. Moreover, the caucus would f a ll to represent the people's w ishes, since some delegates would attend from s ta te s declared fo r a candidate o ther than Crawford, and the sta te d object 112 of the caucus to preserve p arty unity was obviously h y p o critical. Some In sisted th a t 1f the attendance was sm all, no nomination should be made, and th ere were various public meetings which opposed the ^ N a tio n a l In te llig e n c e r, February 9, 1824, p. 3; February 11, 1824, p. 3; February 12, 1824, p. 2; February 13, 1824, p. 2. ^R ichm ond Enquirer, February 10, 1824, p. 3. 112 N a tio n a l J o u r n a l , F eb ru ary 1 1 , 1824, p . 2 . 313 gathering no m atter what the s l z e J ^ Whatever the degree o f th e ir e f fo r ts , the Crawford men were unable to en tice any number o f the friends of other candidates to attend the caucus. Only 66 congressmen, plus two p roxies, appeared In the chamber of the House o f R epresentatives on the evening o f February 14. M assachusetts, N ew Hampshire, Vermont, Delaware, Kentucky, Ten nessee, Louisiana, M ississip p i, Alabama, and Missouri to ta lly boycot ted th e meeting, while a ll remaining s ta te s except Georgia, V irginia and North Carolina were represented by le ss than h a lf th e ir members. Even New York, widely heralded by the caucus adherents as 1n Crawford's column, mustered only 16 o f 36; only th ree of 28 attended from Pennsylvania, another crucial s ta te . Senator Benjamin Ruggles of Ohio and Representative Ela C ollins of N ew York were named chairman and se c re ta ry , resp ectiv ely . Before b a llo tin g began, a motion was made by P hilip Markley to postpone the decision u n til March 20 with the Idea of seeking broader support fo r the caucus In the Interim and the hope—vain though 1 t proved to be—th a t the Harrisburg Convention on March 4 would support the caucus mode o f nomination. The Crawfordltes apparently had l i t t l e hope of gaining much more ^ ^National In te llig e n c e r, February 12, 1824, p. 2. F. H. C arroll to Edward Lloyd, February 9, [1824], Lloyd Family Papers, Maryland H isto rical Society. Henry Clay to Peter B. P o rte r, February 10, 1824, P eter B. P orter Papers, Buffalo and Erie County H isto rical Society. Andrew Jackson to John Coffee, February 15, 1824, 1n John Spencer B assett, e d ., The Correspondence o f Andrew Jackson (7 v o ls ., Washington, D. C ., 19z6-l93S), I I I , 2z8. 314 co-operation, because the motion f a ile d .1** O n a motion by Mahlon Dickerson, the group proceeded to vote w ithout a discussion about candidates, and to the su rp rise of no one, Crawford received a vast m ajority, receiving 62 compared to 2 fo r Adams, and 1 each fo r Jackson and Nathaniel Macon. The meeting moved then to the v ice-p resid en tial guestlon. A fter Martin Van Buren, speaking fo r Daniel D. Tompkins, told the group th a t the V ice-President wished to r e tir e from th a t o ffic e , the caucus carried out with a s lig h tly le s s e r degree of unanimity th e agreed stra te g y of the G eorgian's party by nominating A lbert G a lla tin , giving him 57 votes to 2 fo r Erastus Root, and 1 each fo r John Quincy Adams, William E u stls, Samuel Smith, William King, Richard Rush, John Tod, and Walter Lowrle. The caucus also passed resolutions declaring Crawford and G allatin to be the nominees, In sistin g th a t the members had acted 1n th e ir p riv a te ra th e r than public ch aracters, and providing fo r the chairman and se cretary to advise Crawford and G allatin and to get th e ir response.115 The meeting acted In th e ir own defense by resolving to publish an address to the American people to accompany the proceedings of the caucus. This address, drafted by a committee composed of the chairman and secretary plus the signers o f the caucus c a ll, spoke 1n glowing ^ N a tio n a l In te llig e n c e r, February 16, 1824, p. 2. Richmond Engulrer, February 1^. 18*4, pp. 2-3. N iles' Weekly R egister, October 2, 1824, p. 67. See also J . B. Thomas to A lbert G a lla tin , February 11, 1824, A lbert G allatin Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. 115Nat1ona1 In te llig e n c e r, February 16, 1824, p. 2. Richmond Engulrer, February 19, 18*4, pp. 2-3. N iles' Weekly R eg ister, October 2 , 1824, p. 67. terms about the g reat caucus tra d itio n and the need fo r concerted a ctio n . I t also denounced various anti-caucus arguments by In sistin g th a t the F ed eralists were s t i l l a danger to the dominant p arty , and th a t a m ajority o f Republicans continued to favor the congressional system 1n view of the re la tiv e ly weak response accorded the Tennessee re so lu tio n s. They explained the small attendance In terms of various circum stances, c itin g Macon's opposition on p rin c ip le as one example; th u s, the meeting fa ile d to r e fle c t accu rately Crawford's true stren g th among congressmen. The sum o f the argument centered on the avoidance o f p o litic a l su icid e: "The question 1 s, In our best Judgment, one touching the dismemberment or preservation o f the p a rty . " They were a f flic te d with an acute case of p o litic a l myopia, however, fo r the p arty had already been s p l i t a p a rt, In fa c t, I f not In name; the F e d e ra lists, moreover, were obviously not a serious t h r e a t .^ 6 While Niles g le efu lly p rinted the observation of one observer th a t "the mountain had labored and produced a mouse," such pro-caucus jo u rn als as the National In te llig e n c e r and th e Richmond Enquirer urged the people to support the nomination and s ta te d th a t the vote fo r Crawford was an u n fair p ictu re o f his stren g th 1n Congress. They viewed the comparative strengths according to a d iffe re n t calcu latio n : o f an estim ated 220 Republicans In Congress, 93 supposedly favored Crawford, 38 were fo r Adams, 32 fo r Clay, 25 fo r Calhoun, and 23 fo r Jackson. Such to ta ls r e fle c t e ith e r In te re stin g ty p e-settin g o r a s o rt ^Richm ond Enquirer, February 21, 1824, p. 2. National I n te l lig e n c e r, February 19, 1824, p. 2. 316 o f "new" mathematics, Inasmuch as the estim ated to ta le d 221. In ad d itio n , they pointed out th a t many o f the anti-caucus friends of the o th er candidates had attended caucuses 1n e a r lie r y ea rs, which would seem to Indicate th e ir current opposition was based on In te re st ra th e r than p r i n c i p l e . ^ The Albany Argus spoke 1n much the same fashion and published one estim ate of Crawford's support 1n Congress th a t to ta le d 110. Moreover, one pro-caucus rep o rt In sisted th a t an unsuccessful attem pt was made to gather enough members to attend and vote against a nomination, but the decision o f the anti-caucus 118 c o a litio n against p a rtic ip a tin g makes th is sto ry unlikely. Some of the Georgian's p arty , though obviously disappointed th a t some of th e ir p o litic a l brethren had fa ile d to attend the meeting to support th e ir c h ie f, were moderately encouraged by th e ir general Impression 11Q o f the caucus. Said one: "W e are now united and they divided." While Crawford doubtless had more than 64 friends 1n Congress, 1t may be questioned whether he had 110 o r even 93. The caucus newspapers did, however, accurately pinpoint one American p o litic a l truism : what ever lo fty Ideals are enunciated p ractical p o litic a l n ecessities generally supersede p rin c ip le . N11es, of course, was not alone 1n condemning the caucus nomi n ation. The National Journal was one o f the many o ther papers which ^Richm ond Enquirer, February 19, 1824, p. 3. National In te l lig en ce r. February lb , 1824, p. 2. ^®Albany Argus February 27, 1824, p. 3. See also N iles' Weekly R eg ister, February 2 l , 1824, pp. 388-92; February 28, 1824, pp. 404-5. 119 W alter Lowrle to A lbert G a llatin , February 21, 1824, A lbert G allatin Papers, New-York H istorical Society. joined the chorus of an v ils being pounded against the system, remarking th a t "the doom o f Mr. Crawford 1s sealed forever. I f ever man had cause to curse the too e fflc lo u s [ s ic ] zeal of his frie n d s, Mr. Crawford 1s th a t man." Pointing out th a t the only delegations with a m ajority o f members present were V irg in ia, North C arolina, and Georgia, the Journal also In siste d th a t 18 o f Crawford's 64 votes were from s ta te s which would eventually oppose the Treasury Secretary In the e le c tio n , thus reducing the meaningful number o f his votes from the i?o already meager to ta l. The o th er p resid en tial contenders also con sidered th is m inority nomination as a blow which would In ju re Crawford's c h a n c e s .^ The congressional nomination received a l i t t l e a id , however, from the V irginia le g is la tiv e caucus held on February 21. The meeting cast 139 votes fo r Crawford, 7 fo r Adams, 6 fo r Macon, 6 fo r Jackson, and 5 fo r Clay. A fter some question about the propriety o f naming a v1ce-pres1dent1a1 contender, the group decided to do so, awarding G allatin 120 votes to 30 fo r Langdon Cheves and 10 fo r Macon J 22 Shortly a f te r the Washington caucus, attempts were revived to unify the four non-Crawford factio n s In a more su b stan tial c o a litio n . ^ National Jo u rn al, February 18, 1824, p. 2. 12^Henry Clay to P eter B. P o rte r, February 15, 1824, P eter B. P orter Papers, Buffalo and Erie County H isto rical Society. Clay to Richard Bache, February 17, 1824, In Hopkins and Hargreaves, Papers of Clay, I I I , 645. F. H. Story to Joseph Story, February 22, ]824, Joseph Story Papers, Library o f Congress. ^22John Randolph to Richard K. Randolph, February 25, 1824, John Randolph Papers. Library o f Congress. Richmond Enquirer, February 24, 1824, p. 3. 318 The National Jo u rn al, an Adams p r in t, even c arrie d an a r tic le form ally proposing a c o a litio n In which Adams would be run fo r P resid en t, Jackson fo r V ice-President, while o fferin g cabinet se ats to Clay and Calhoun. Able to work together on a lim ited scale In opposing the caucus, these ra th e r diverse elements could not w ithstand the pressure Inherent In a more elab o rately stru ctu red o rg an izatio n , because no 123 arrangement sa tis fy in g a ll the p rin cip als could be devised. The H arrisburg Convention o f March 4 not only served to discon c e rt the Crawfordltes but also signaled the end o f Calhoun's candidacy fo r the f i r s t o ffic e . During the la tte r p a rt o f 1823 and the early months o f 1824, the current In Pennsylvania was s h iftin g su b sta n tia lly away from the Carolinian and toward Jackson. The sig n ifican ce o f th is s h if t was ra th e r well recognized by the middle p a rt o f February, and I t soon became ra th e r obvious th a t Calhoun would be withdrawn th ere 1n favor of Old Hickory, who many thought would su rely receive the endorse' ment a t H arrisburg. One key Indicator of th is approaching development was the February 18 meeting In Philadelphia a t which George M . D allas, a leading Calhoun man, successfully proposed reso lu tio n s which ex pressed th e ir preference o f Jackson fo r P resident and urged the Harrisburg gathering to nominate the General. Calhoun and h is frie n d s, In viewing the situ a tio n r e a lis tic a lly , decided to forego the contest fo r the p re sid e n tial ch air 1n 1824 In order to accept a v irtu a lly c e rta in sele ctio n fo r the second o ffic e and to aim fo r a future race to the White House. In lin e with the c o a litio n o f the Jackson and 123 National Journal c ite d 1n the National In te llig e n c e r. February 20, 1824,I T T 319 Calhoun factio n s In Pennsylvania, a meeting In Harrisburg nominated Old Hickory fo r President and Calhoun fo r h is running mate p rio r to 124 the March 4 meeting. W hen the convention met, 125 delegates representing a ll but four o f th e s ta t e 's counties were p resen t. A reso lu tio n was offered a t the o u tse t approving the caucus nomination of Crawford and G allatin , but th is measure suffered a m iserable d e fe a t, 123-2. Then a motion was proposed providing th a t the e le c to ra l tic k e t named by the group would be unpledged. Again the convention voted an overwhelming negative, 120-5. The next resolution provided fo r Jackson's nomination, and 1t was c a rried by the nearly unanimous to ta l o f 124-1. Having decided the f i r s t spot on the s la te , the meeting turned to th e vice-presidency. A fter voting against a postponement o f the question, 92-33, the d ele gates proceeded to c a st th e ir b a llo ts : Calhoun, 87; Clay, 10; G a lla tin , 10; William Findlay, 10; John Tod, 8; and Daniel Montgomery, 1. On March 5, the convention passed by 123-2 a measure condemning the caucus because I t was composed o f a m inority dedicated to one candidate, "a fla g ra n t departure from the estab lish ed usage of the republican party . . . contrary to the known wishes and sentiments of 124 Henry Clay to P eter B. P o rte r, February 19, 1824, Peter B. P o rter Papers, Buffalo and E rie County H istorical S ociety. Clay to Richard Bache, February 17, 1824, In Hopkins and Hargreaves, Papers o f Clay. I l l , 645-46. Jackson to John Coffee, February 22, 1824, in B a s iitt, Correspondence o f Jackson. I l l , 230. National In te llig e n c e r, February 24, 1824, p. 2. Richmond E nquirer, February 26, l8 2 4 ,p p . 2-3; March 2 , 1824, p. 3. R. M . Saunders to B a rtle tt Yancey, March 1, 1824, W alter Clark M anuscripts, North Carolina Department of Archives and H istory. Samuel D. Ingham to William Gaston (ty p e sc rip t), April 24, 1824, William Gaston Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. 320 a larg e m inority o f the democratic members o f congress, and In . . . contempt o f the voice of the people." The meeting concluded by o f fic ia lly nominating Jackson and Calhoun and by choosing the e lecto ral tic k e t. A n address to the people ag ain st the caucus and 1n favor o f th e ir own nominees was also d rafted . The method o f choosing p re si d en tial candidates was thus a primary Issue 1n the e lectio n In Pennsylvania, and the people gave considerable preference fo r the Harrisburg tic k e t against the Washington nom ination.1*5 Old Hickory was pleased with th e choices o f the Harrisburg Convention and f e l t the Jackson-Calhoun tic k e t would carry the South, West, and both C arolInas.1*5 Not a ll of his ch ief supporters were so e n th u sia stic about Calhoun, and some jealousy and suspicion existed between the o rig in al Jackson men and the new converts from Calhoun.^ 7 One Crawford lie u te n a n t, R. M . Saunders, had expected considerable and e ffe c tiv e a c tiv ity from G allatin In the event of the nomination o f Jackson, but he was to be disappointed.1*8 A ctually, the convention 185N11es* Weekly R egister, March 13, 1824, pp. 19-20; March 20, 1824, pp. 39-42. National I n te l11qencer, March 8, 1824, p. 3; March 10, 1824, p. 3. Richard M . Johnson to John J . C rittenden, March 7, 1824; George M . Bibb to C rittenden, March 8 , 1824, John J . C rittenden Papers, Library of Congress. Herman H allp erin , "Pro-Jackson Sentiment In Pennsylvania, 1820-1828," Pennsylvania Magazine o f H istory and Biography, L (Ju ly , 1926), 198-99. 125Jackson to Andrew J . Donelson, March 7, 1824, Andrew J . DoneIson Papers, Library o f Congress. ^ J a m e s Buchanan to Hugh Hamilton, March 19, 1824, Andrew Jackson Papers, Tennessee S tate Library and Archives. 1 l a u n d e r s to B a rtle tt Yancey, February 18, 1824, B a rtle tt Yancey Papers, Southern H istorical C o llectio n , U niversity o f North C arolina. demonstrated th a t the ace-high trump card the Crawfordltes thought they played 1n the stru g g le fo r Pennsylvania by nominating G allatin was re a lly a deuce no-trump. In ad d itio n , word from N ew York Indicated considerable unhappiness w ith the Inclusion of the Pennsylvanian on the tic k e t. There was even a rumor of a le g is la tiv e meeting planned fo r Albany which would denounce the c a u c u s .^ 9 In sh o rt, the caucus nominee fo r the second spot was a p o litic a l anachronism, a non-asset to the Georgian's campaign. G allatin him self, though forewarned, was hurt by what he considered a vote o f no-conf1dence a t H arrisburg and even considered withdrawing a t th is p o in t. His clo se st confidential ad visors generally urged him to remain 1n the contest a t th is tim e, how everJ30 The caucus continued to be a v ita l question throughout the remainder of the campaign. The Crawford forces n a tu ra lly In siste d th a t the congressional nomination was essen tial and th a t th e ir ch ief was the regular Republican candidate. The friends o f Adams, Jackson, and Clay, o f course, maintained the opposite view, denouncing the caucus as unwarranted from a p rac tica l standpoint and as a usurpation o f the people's rig h ts from a legal view. Jackson, fo r example, In s is te d th a t the people had the rig h t "and I hope they w ill exercise ^ A lb a n y Argus, March 19, 1824, p. 3. Joseph D elafleld to John B ailey, February 27, 1824, John Bailey Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. ^30James G allatin to James Nicholson, J r . , March 10, 1824; W alter Lowrle to A lbert G a lla tin , February 25, March 10, 1824, A lbert G allatin Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. 322 1 t and put In trig u e and caucus forever down." The newspapers p ersisted In th e ir activ e Involvement In p o litic s generally and the caucus question In p a rtic u la r. The National In te llig e n c e r, Richmond Enquirer, and the Albany Argus were notable p resses, among o th e rs, which con tinued to lead the Crawford contingent 1n su stain in g the system of congressional nominations. In addition to previous arguments, the Argus In sisted th a t the F ed eralists were a t the bottom o f the opposi tio n to Crawford and the caucus, while the Enquirer accused the opponents of the system of using mere names to create fe a r among the people: They "thunder 1n your e a r, Caucus Candidate! . . . What then, fe llo w -c ltlz e n s, Is th is awful monster whose huge misshapen form Is thus carrying te r ro r through the nation . . . . Sum m on up courage and Independence s u ffic ie n t to approach and examine I t fo r your- 131 selv e s." N iles' Weekly R egister and the National Journal remained 132 1n the vanguard o f those opposing the reign of King Caucus. Inasmuch as there were three candidates against the caucus and only one In favor, many more papers were opposed to the system than supported I t . Some opinion was even expressed as la te as March suggesting an a lte rn a tiv e nomination by a national convention, but time and other 131 Albany Argus, March 5, 1824, p. 3; April 9, 1824, p. 3; June 6, 1824, p. 3; August 3, 1824, p. 2; August 24, 1824, p. 2. National In te llig e n c e r, March 4, 1824, p. 2; August 23, 1824, p. 3. Richmond Enquirer, August 6, 1824, p. 3; September 28, 1824, p. 2. 132 Niles was p a rtic u la rly cau stic 1n h is c ritic is m , esp ecially as seen In h is se rie s on "The Sovereignty o f the People" published la te In the campaign. Niles* Weekly R egister, March 6, 1824, pp. 1-2; March 13, 1824, p. 19; April 17, 1824, pT 99. Examples o f the "Sovereignty" a rtic le s are found In the Issues fo r September 4, 11, 18, and 25, 1824. National Jo u rn al, March 13, 1824, p. 2. 323 1 problems made th is Idea Im p racticab le.* ’'9 A n o n -o fficial function o f Congress, the caucus was ra re ly discussed during the regular meetings of each house. But because of the c e n tra lity o f the caucus question 1n 1824, 1t was perhaps In ev itab le th a t I t should come up. In March, while discussing 1n the Senate c ertain co n stitu tio n al amendments re la tin g to a uniform method o f electin g the P resident and V ice-President, Rufus King launched a tira d e against the caucus. This action e lic ite d a vigorous three-day debate on the p ro p riety of congressional nominations. F in ally , 1 t was decided th a t the question was Improper fo r the Senate to d iscu ss, and the verbal b a ttle was halted w ithout a winner. Thus did the Senate determine the non-off1c1a1 capacity o f the caucus. Even John H. Eaton, a warm supporter of Jackson, the most ardent anti-caucus candidate, spoke against discussing the question during the session of the Senate J 3* Many s ta te and local meetings—besides those s ta te le g is la tiv e actions already discussed—expressed th e ir opinions on the caucus and the candidates a f te r the nomination had been made In February. Following the H arrisburg Convention of March 4, numerous groups named a Jackson-Calhoun tic k e t. A larg e gathering of Old H ickory's friends met 1n N ew York City on April 8 and approved the Harrisburg meeting and Its ^ R u f u s King to Charles King, March 23, 1824, In C. R. King, L ife and Correspondence of Rufus King, VI, 557. Calvin Jones to P eter Force, September 10, 1824, Hurja C ollect!on, Tennessee H isto rical Society. ^ N a tio n a l In te llig e n c e r, March 19, 1824, p. 3; March 20, 1824, p. 3; March 23, 1824, p. 3; March 24, 1824, p. 2. N iles' Weekly R eg ister, March 27, 1824, pp. 49-50. nominations o f Jackson and Calhoun. Sim ilar action favoring these two candidates occurred In Albany, also 1n A p ril, and 1n various places 1n V irginia during M ay and June, to name a few. Jackson was nominated alone by some m eetings, Including Instances 1n the spring 1n M ississip pi and Ohio. Adams received endorsement by such groups as the N ew Hampshire and Connecticut le g isla tu re s as well as by local gatherings, Including some even 1n V irginia. Adams-Jackson tic k e ts were named by various conclaves In several s ta te s , Including Connecticut, V irginia, and Alabama. The Crawford p artisan s In Pennsylvania attem pted to counteract the Harrisburg Convention by a popularly-appointed meeting of delegates 1n the same place on August 9, 1824, which passed reso lu tio n s favoring the caucus and the Crawford-Gallatln s la te . Local nominations o f the same tic k e t developed 1n Maryland, Alabama, and Maine as w ell. Clay was named 1n th is manner In Ohio, N ew Jersey , Pennsylvania, and V irginia. Frequently, those convocations which declared fo r Crawford likew ise expressed favor toward the caucus, while those fo r o th er candidates often resolved against the system. In any event, a f te r the February 14 caucus nomination was known, any meeting which came out favoring the congressional system was a vote fo r Crawford, w hile a denunciation was an expression, 1n e f f e c t, fo r another of the candidates. The fin al box score on le g is la tiv e positions shows N ew York and Maine as having declared 1n favor of the caucus; Maryland, Alabama, Ohio, Indiana, and one house 1n South Carolina deciding against the system; and North C arolina, Georgia, and Connecticut sp e c ific a lly refusing to ac t on the Tennessee reso lu tio n s. 325 135 Presumably, the other s ta te s made no p a rtic u la r pronouncements. There were so many candidates—each fev erish ly mapping his p resid en tial strateg y 1n constant e ffo rts to block his opponents—th a t they gave comparatively l i t t l e e a rly a tten tio n to v1ce-pres1dent1al stra te g y . In itia l considerations had been directed prim arily toward arranging co alitio n s with another serious contender by o fferin g the second o ffic e 1n retu rn fo r support for th e f i r s t . A s John Quincy Adams remarked 1n April o f ele c tio n y ear, "The friends o f every one of the candidates have sought to gain stren g th for th e ir fa v o rite by c o a litio n with the friends o f the o th e r s ." ^ 6 Though such a c tiv itie s ex isted from time to time throughout the long campaign, e ffo rts n o tice ably quickened 1n the weeks follow ing the caucus nomination and the agreement between s ig n ific a n t portions o f the Jackson and Calhoun factio n s as evidenced by the tic k e t nominated a t H arrisburg. Perhaps perceiving the prospects fo r a meteoric r is e on the p art o f Jackson, the Adams forces sought as e a rly as about the s ta r t of 1824 to acquire National In te llig e n c e r, March 15, 1824, p. 2; August 14, 1824, p. 2; September 9, 1824, p. 3; September 16, 1824, p. 3. Richmond Enqulrer, February 21, 1824, p. 2; April 27, 1824, p. 4; M ay 21, 1824, p . 2 ; M ay 26, 1824, p. 3; June 1, 1824, p. 3; June 18, 1824, p. 2; June 22, 1824, p. 2; August 17, 1824, p. 2; September 28, 1824, p. 2. N iles' Weekly R egister, December 27, 1823, p. 258; January 10, 1824, p. 292; January 17, 1824, p. 308; February 7, 1824, p. 361; February 14, 1824, p. 370; March 20, 1824, p. 39; April 17, 1824, p. 99; M ay 29, 1824, p. 203; August 17, 1824, p. 332. National Jo u rn al. March 13, 1824, p. 2. Albany Argus, M ay 25, 1824, p. 3; August 17, 1824, p. 2. J . Rutherfoord to Andrew Stevenson, April 4, 1824, Andrew Stevenson Papers, Library of Congress. ^®C. F. Adams, Diary o f John Quincy Adams, VI, 302-3. 326 h is In te re s ts 1n retu rn fo r the vice-presidency. One supporter of the N ew Englander, however, cautioned ag ain st rushing Into an overt nomi nation o f Old Hickory, because I t was not c le a r whether the Jackson men would s e ll th e ir caances a t the gold ring In return fo r a guarantee o f the s ilv e r . Indeed, the o ffe r might be spumed and used against Adams, much as had Crawford's sim ilar proposition to the Secretary of S tate . Another Adams s tr a te g is t urged th a t a c o a litio n promising the second spot was the way to ensure his c h ie f 's e le c tio n . I t made no substantive d ifferen ce with whom the arrangement was secured, though he recommended making the o ffe r to Jackson's friends f i r s t , then to C raw ford's.137 Adams agreed th a t castin g his Influence fo r the man from Tennessee would be a wise move from geographical considerations. N o doubt Adams realized th a t, I f su ccessfu l, he would rid him self of one of his most serious riv a ls and resolved to pursue the course of sup porting the General fo r V ice-President even without an agreement between the two. One danger was th a t supporting Jackson fo r Vice- P resident might possibly strengthen h is chances for f i r s t place 1n the absence o f a sp e c ific arrangement, but Adams was w illin g to take th a t ris k —a t le a s t fo r aw hile. Though some advisors suggested the pos s i b i l i t y , he had l i t t l e Incentive to declare In favor of Calhoun, who had already taken him self out o f the race; circumstances Indicated th a t the C aro lin ian 's adherents would generally back Old Hickory. 137F. H. Story to Joseph S tory, February 22, 1824, Joseph Story Papers, Library o f Congress. J . S. Sprague to John B ailey, March 5, 1824, John Bailey Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. 327 Indeed, the suggestion o f a Jackson-Adams o r an Adams-Jackson tic k e t was made to the Hero and to Adams In early March by James Tallmadge, but Jackson refused to give his consent to th is o r any o th er c o a litio n . Often the friends o f the candidates were more eager to arrange a co alitio n than th e ir fa v o rite was to accept one. About th is tim e, Adams tem porarily wavered a b it 1n h is decision to support Old Hickory without a sp e c ific agreement, and a North C arolinian attem pted, though without success, to g et him to su b stitu te Nathaniel Macon fo r Jackson.1 *88 The Adams-Jackson b all began ro llin g , as local nominations—some of which have been already noted—began to spring up more profusely. The faction favorable to the Secretary of S tate continued to work throughout the summer fo r th is tic k e t. Shortly a f te r the movement began, however, a confidant o f G allatin predicted 1t would eventually 140 be abandoned, and he was rig h t. By mid-September, 1t was c le ar th at not only would Jackson f a ll to be enticed by Adams' o ffe r but also th a t the General would fin is h a t the top o f the e le c to ra l l i s t fo r P resident. A fter co nsultation with advisors, Adams ended his support 138 National Jo u rn a l, January 14, 1824, p. 2. C. F. Adams, Diary o f John Quincy Adams, March 11, 27, April 2, 5, 17, 1824, VI, 253, 269, 274, 279. Z9?. Tallmadge to Jackson, March 6, 1824; Jackton to Tallmadge, March 12, 1824, 1n B assett, Correspondence o f Andrew Jackson, I I I , 236-38. ^ N a tio n a l Jo u rn al, March 13, 1824, p. 2. Richmond Enquirer, March 19, 1824, p. 3; August 2 , 1824, p. 3. John B. David to Peter Force, August 9, 1824, Hurja C ollection, Tennessee H isto rical Society. ^ ^ a l t e r Lowrle to A lbert G a llatin , April 29, 1824, A lbert G allatin Papers, New-York H istorical Society. 328 141 o f Old Hickory fo r second place but was re tic e n t to aid Calhoun. One N ew Yorker In terested In the N ew Englander's prospects, however, now urged th a t the party support Calhoun, whose friends 1n Congress would supposedly .reciprocate In the lik e ly event of an electio n by 142 the House o f R epresentatives. This plea struck a responsive chord with a good number o f Adams men, thus helping to ensure the War S ecretary 's electio n to the v1ce-pres1dency with the help o f the N ew Englander's forces. Though Jackson received a few second place votes from Adams e le c to rs, the vast percentage went to Calhoun, as did those o f the Jackson e le c to rs. The Carolinian appeared to play both sides o f the fence to a c e rta in degree, thus accounting 143 perhaps fo r his a b ility to win support from the opposing groups. A fter the caucus nomination, Clay also began to see the neces s ity to develop a policy on the v1ce-pres1dency, but he thought l i t t l e o f the chance to get one o f the major candidates to drop out 1n return fo r the second s lo t. Instead, though Clay refused to admit I t to some people, his friends hoped su ccessfully to accomplish fo r N ew York what the Crawford had attem pted fo r Pennsylvania: to nominate a man from the Empire s ta te to help him win I ts votes. Shortly a f te r the caucus on February 14, Harry of the West wrote his N ew York s tr a te g is t, P eter B. P o rter, asking h is group's opinion on 141 C. F. Adams, Diary o f John Quincy Adams, September 19, 1824, VI, 417. --------------------- ------- ----------- 142 John Dlx to John W . Taylor, October 10, 16, 24, 1824, John W . Taylor Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. 143 John C. Calhoun to Samuel L. Southard, August 16, 1824, Samuel L. Southard Papers, Princeton U niversity. 329 the man who should be run and about two weeks la te r wrote again saying the Clay men In Washington were thinking o f Smith Thompson, Samuel Young, and P o rter him self. The Kentuckian conceded, however, th a t P o rte r's deafness was an o b stacle. M uch to C lay's consternation, his advisor was slow 1n replying, which occasioned fu rth e r m issives from Washington to Inquire on the v1ce-pres1dent1al opinions. Finally P orter re p lie d , remarking th a t he scarcely knew what to say. Though p referrin g to seek a candidate outside the s ta te , he did think Thompson would be the best N ew Yorker, though doubting th a t he would run. Nathan Sanford would also be a good choice, esp ecially 1f h is and Crawford's friends should turn to Clay. H e even mentioned th a t Nathaniel Macon o f North Carolina would be acceptable to N ew York. By the end o f A p ril, the Clay forces In Washington had decided te n ta tiv e ly on Sanford. By mid-June, th is choice was f a irly firm , and various local meetings In N ew York, Kentucky, and Ohio, to name se v e ral, pub lic iz e d the decision by nominating Clay-Sanford tic k e ts 1n meetings 144 during the summer and f a l l . One more major change was to occur In the box score on vice- 144 Clay to P o rte r, March 3, April 3, 1824, P eter B. P orter Papers, Buffalo and E rie County H isto rical Society. Clay to J . B. S tu a rt, June 14, 1824, Henry Clay Miscellaneous M anuscripts, New- York H isto rical Society. P o rter to Clay, April 5, 1824; Clay to P o rte r, April 26, 1824; Clay to Joslah S. Johnston, July 21, 31, Sep tember 10, 1824; Johnston to Clay, September 16, 26, 1824; Ralph Lockwood to Clay, October 9, 1824, 1n Hopkins and Hargreaves, Papers o f Clay, I I I , 733, 744, 822, 833, 840, 852-53, 864. Albany Argus, October 1, 1824, p. 2; October 29, 1824, p. 2. John C. Calhoun to Samuel L. Southard, June 28, 1824, Samuel L. Southard Papers, Princeton U niversity. p resid en tial candidates: In the f a ll of e lectio n y ear, th e ir ta c tic s regarding Pennsylvania long since an obvious fa ilu r e , the Georgian's party arranged to drop G allatin from the tic k e t and attem pted to take up Harry o f the West In h is place 1n return fo r the support of the Crawford cause by th e Clay p arty . In fa c t, the question o f Crawford's running mate became somewhat tenuous not long a f te r the caucus nomi nation. The H arrisburg Convention, as previously Indicated, soon provided considerable evidence th a t G a lla tin 's presence on the caucus s la te would not carry Pennsylvania. Moreover, the Richmond Junto, among o th e rs, were le ss than delighted with the choice fo r second man on the t ic k e t.146 Yet the Crawford managers were unable to determine a more su ita b le candidate fo r several months a f te r the caucus, so when G allatin offered to withdraw 1n A pril, he was advised to stay 1n the co n test with the provision th a t 1t might be su ita b le fo r him to r e tir e la te r 1n the game. By the middle of June, a close Pennsylvania asso ciate of G allatin was somewhat more o p tim istic , but such fantasy was soon to vanish 1n the harsh lig h t o f r e a lity .146 During August, the lig h t was shining b rig h tly enough th a t the Crawford party proposed the c o a litio n to Clay and his close asso ciates. 146R. M . Saunders to B a rtle tt Yancey, March 30, 1824, Walter Clark M anuscripts, North Carolina Department o f Archives and History* 146W alter Lowrle to A lbert G alla tin , April 29, June 16, 1824, A lbert G allatin Papers, New-York H istorical Society. Harry Am m on, "The Richmond Junto, 1800-1824," The V irginia Magazine o f H istory and Biography, LXI (October, 1953), 415-17. Though some negotiators promised Clay the vice-presidency now and N ew England's support fo r the f i r s t o ffic e In the fu tu re , one advisor, Joslah S. Johnston, strongly urged the Kentuckian not to accept the o ffe r, because by taking support fo r the second place he would be withdrawing from the p resid en tial sweepstakes de facto I f not de ju re . Some o f the Crawford faction even turned to the "tears fo r what should have been" approach, saying they wished the Kentuckian had o rig in a lly been nominated to run with th e ir ch ief but th at G allatin would now withdraw to make such a course p o ssib le. Johnston p referred to attem pt to get the Crawford group to give Clay enough support fo r the presidency to enable him to en ter the House of R epresentatives; 1f they fa ile d to carry the day fo r th e ir man, 147 Harry o f the West could then be the union candidate. Clay rep lied th a t, even I f d e sira b le , 1 t would be d if f ic u lt to secure his e lectio n as V ice-President because I t would be nearly Impos s ib le to persuade h is western frien d s to switch th e ir support to second p lace; even 1f they would sw itch, th ere would be no way to g et them to agree on a new p resid en tial candidate. Such circumstances ruled out any c o a litio n o f the v ariety proposed. I f he were to receive any vice- p resid e n tia l support 1n the eastern s ta te s , 1 t would have to be spon taneous and separate from the p resid en tial question. I f his friends wished to run him on th e ir own and he were e le c te d , the post would be 147 Johnston to Clay, August 19, 25, 1824, 1n Hopkins and Hargreaves, Papers o f Clay, I I I , 815-16, 817-18. Martin Van Buren to Benjamin Ruggles (d ra ft), August 26, 1824, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library o f Congress. 332 accepted—provided o f course, he fa ile d to win the f i r s t o ffic e —but he would not seek th e vice-presidency o r coalesce with Crawford to get 1 t. Clay thus rejected the Craw fordltes' o ffe r made through Johnston, refusing to withdraw from the contest fo r the p re sid e n tia l ch air to 1 A ft concentrate on second place. Not e a sily discouraged, various Crawford s tr a te g is ts continued to press th e ir c o a litio n plan upon the Clay group, hoping they would fin a lly acquiesce when they saw the Georgian's support fo r Vice- P resident sh ifte d to the Kentuckian. But Clay f e l t th a t Calhoun would win the second spot I f only the eastern vote were tra n sferred by such a c o a litio n . Besides, much western sentim ent had turned to Nathan Sanford as Clay's running mate. Though 1t was p ossible th a t some Adams men and the Crawford forces might support Harry o f the West for the second o ffic e , enabling him to beat Calhoun, such a combination was extremely u n likely. Clay remained unw illing to form a co a litio n with the Crawford p arty to pursue an unlikely chance fo r the second o ffic e . By mid-September, Johnston thought the Crawford party would nevertheless run th e Kentuckian even w ithout a c o a litio n .149 Van Buren and the o th er party leaders had decided th a t the Pennsylvanian should drop out o f the race. Walter Lowrle broke the news to G allatin In September. Since th e Van Buren element as 14®Clay to Johnston, September 3, 1824, In Hopkins and Hargreaves, Papers o f Clay, I I I . 826-27. 149Johnston to Clay, September 4 , 11, 26, 1824; Clay to Johnston, September 10, 1824, In Hopkins and Harqreaves, Papers o f Clay, I I I , 829, 833-34, 837-38. well as various Crawford leaders 1n V irginia—to name some—were s t i l l urging the su b stitu tio n o f Clay on the tic k e t, and since G a lla tin 's chances appeared sm all, Lowrle advised his frien d to withdraw. G allatin rep lie d he would not drop out ju s t to avoid d efeat but would gladly do so 1 f h is staying In would h u rt Crawford o r prevent a b e tte r v1ce-pres1dent1a1 candidate from being e lected . He decided to leave the o f fic ia l decision to the V irginia committee o f correspondence and sent a l e t t e r on October 2 fo r th e ir use 1n declaring the end o f his candidacy.^50 The Crawford leaders 1n the Old Dominion n a tu ra lly accepted G a lla tin 's o ffe r to withdraw and generally urged avoiding d ire c t contact with Harry of the West, attem pting Instead to g et the N ew York le g isla tu re to nominate him on the Crawford tic k e t. They hoped Clay would accept th is action as decisive and ac t accordingly. But the proposed nomination was never effec te d : Van Buren now had a ra th e r tenuous g rip on the le g isla tu re as la te r proved by h is fa ilu re to secure N ew York fo r Crawford—and C lay's friends refused to co-operate In such a p ro je c t. Overruling those who counselled no consultation with Clay, the L ittle Magician decided to attem pt one la s t tric k to get Harry o f the West to accept the co a litio n o ffe r: through Lowrle, Abner Lacock o f Pennsylvania was deputized to make a d ire c t pilgrimage to Clay on behalf o f the ^ L o w rle to G a lla tin , September 25, October 4, 1824; G allatin to Lowrle, October 2 , 1824, A lbert G allatin Papers, New-York His to ric a l Society. 334 N ew York M e r l i n . 151 There was s u ffic ie n t ta lk about the proposed Crawford-Clay c o a litio n to launch a fa lse rumor to the e ffe c t th a t Clay was withdrawing from the p resid en tial co n test to accept backing fo r the second o f fic e .152 Once the choice to r e tir e had been made, G allatin thought the notice should be published soon. Accordingly, about October 8, Lowrle wrote to Richmond and Albany, authorizing the publication o f the 153 can d id ate's statem ent o f withdrawal which had been prepared e a r lie r. The Inform ation was soon printed 1n various papers, and some Crawford journals began to ta lk openly of supporting Clay fo r V ice-President— w ithout h is sp e c ific consent and 1n the absence of any sig n ific a n t nom ination.154 Indeed, a number o f the Crawford party In Washington decided to support Clay fo r V ice-President, but various of the Treasury S ecretary 's ta c tic ia n s were unenthuslastlc about the Kentuckian. In fa c t, Joseph G ales, J r . , and William W . Seaton of the National In te l lig en cer favored leaving Crawford w ithout a sp e c ific running mate; Gales and apparently the Georgian him self, a t le a s t fo r awhile, 151 Lowrle to Van Buren, September 24, 1824; P. N. Nicholas to Van Buren, October 19, 1824, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library of Congress. Van Buren to Samuel Smith, November 17, 1824, Samuel Smith Papers, Library o f Congress. Robert V. Remlnl, Martin Van Buren and the Making o f the Democratic Party (New York and London, 1959), 67-69. 152 N iles' Weekly R eg ister, October 23, 1824, p. 113. 153 G allatin to Lowrle, October 7, 1824; Lowrle to G allatin , October 8, 1824, A lbert G allatin Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. 154 Richmond E n q u ire r , O cto b er 1 9 , 18 2 4 , p . 3 ; O c to b e r 2 9 , 1824, p . 2 . 155 p referred Nathan Sanford over Clay. The Kentuckian gave a c le a r negative to Van Buren's em issary» thus ending the ra th e r one-sided f li r t a t i o n , and the re je cte d su ito rs generally dropped any plans to sponsor th is p o litic a l marriage by proxy. Though no uniform course was then adopted, th ere were some suggestions th a t Van Buren should be the new v1ce-pres1dent1al candidate; th is course was Implemented In Georgia, doubtless with Crawford's approval. The Crawford forces ultim ately endorsed no universal policy on the question of a running mate, and the sc a tte red e le c to ra l votes would cle arly demonstrate th is lack of agreem entJ56 Some o f the Calhoun troops had attempted to fo re s ta ll any movement toward Clay, but such e ffo rt proved unnecessary, o f course: o f Crawford's 41 e le c to rs , a ll but two v ice-p resid en tial ta l l i e s went fo r candidates o th er than Clay. Only the Delaware Crawford e le c to rs named the Kentuckian fo r the second o ffic e , while the r e s t s p lit among Van Buren, Jackson, 157 Nathaniel Macon, and Calhoun. ^55Gales and Seaton to Van Buren, October 19, 1824; Gales to Van Buren, October 17, 26, 1824, P. N. Nicholas to Van Buren, October 19, 31, 1824; Louis McLane to Van Buren, October [21?], 27, 1824; Henry Branham to [Joseph G ales, J r . ] , November 14, 1824, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library o f Congress. ^56C1ay to Charles Hammond, October 25, 1824, 1n Hopkins and Hargreaves, Papers o f Clay, I I I , 870-71. A. D1ck1ns to B a rtle tt Yancey, November 21, 26, 1824, B a rtle tt Yancey Papers, Southern H isto rical C o llectio n , U niversity o f North C arolina. 157Saimiel L. Southard to Francis T. Brooke, November 15, 1824, Samuel L. Southard Papers, Library of Congress. Remlnl, Martin Van Buren and the Democratic P arty , 83, 220. 336 As the race neared the fin ish lin e , the following "tick ets" had been p re tty well decided: Jackson-Calhoun, Adams-Calhoun, Clay- Sanford, and Crawford-blank. In th is year of changing candidacies, another of the stalw arts had almost dropped from the ranks. A s b rie fly mentioned already, Crawford had experienced a severe para ly tic stroke 1n September o f 1823, and the subsequent s ta te of h is health was one of g reat concern and considerable mystery. The oppo s itio n camps tended to view the Treasury S ecretary 's condition from a pessim istic viewpoint. Though considerably more p o sitiv e In th e ir public opinions, Crawford's friends began to have p riv a te doubts. There was even some ta lk o f Macon's replacing him on the tic k e t, and Van Buren reportedly la te r adm itted to Clay th a t an e rro r was made In not withdrawing th e ir man In M ay o f e lectio n y ear. In the midst of continual reports o f both a favorable and unfavorable natu re, 1t was d if f ic u lt to know accurately the Georgian's tru e s ta tu s . His friends ultim ately determined th at he would stay 1n the game and publicly 158 Issued re la tiv e ly glowing re p o rts. But p riv a te ly many continued 158 Justus Post to John B. C. Lucas, M ay 13, 31, 1824, Lucas C ollection, Missouri H istorical Society. A. H. [Burges?] to William Polk (ty p e sc rip t), M ay 29, 1824, William Polk Papers, North Carolina Department o f Archives and H istory. Richard Rush to William H. Crawford, June 6 , 1824, Jonathan Bayard Smith Family Papers, Library of Congress. G. M . Troup to Nathaniel Macon, June 15, 1824, Nathaniel Macon Papers, Duke U niversity. Clay to James Ervin, June 19, 1824, Miscellaneous M anuscripts, Tennessee H isto rical Society. Clay to Francis T. Brooke (copy), April 29, 1825, Thomas J . Clay C ollection, Library o f Congress. Richmond Enquirer, August 10, 1824, p. 3. John McLean to John W . Taylor, October 25, 1824, John W . Taylor Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. Albany Argus, November 2, 1824, p. 2. 337 to feel uneasy. One close Crawford ta c tic ia n even attem pted In August to get G allatin to remain a v ice-p resid en tial candidate fo r fear th a t 159 the Georgian might d ie 1n o ffic e . W hen the ele cto ral votes were counted, Jackson's astonishingly strong fin ish was c le a rly documented. Though not winning a m ajority, Old Hickory had 99 e le c to rs as compared to 84 for Adams, 41 fo r Crawford, and 37 fo r Clay. For V ice-President, Calhoun e a sily carried the day with a sizeab le m ajority, receiving 182 votes ag ain st 30 fo r Sanford, 24 fo r Macon (from V irg in ia), 13 fo r Jackson (some erra n t Adams and Clay e le c to rs ), 9 fo r Van Buren (from G eorgia), and 2 fo r Clay (from Delaware). Thus, the choice of P resident was th ru s t upon the House o f R epresentatives as many observers had p red icted , and 1t had been the only such case a f te r the Twelfth Amendment, which provided for separate votes fo r the f i r s t and second o ffic e s , had been r a tif ie d .160 Henry Clay's ro le , since he fa ile d to fin ish 1n the top th re e, was a ltered from th a t o f a serious p resid en tial a sp ira n t to th at o f a Speaker of the House whose Influence would be v ita lly Important 1n choosing the new P resident. A fter considerable re fle c tio n , Clay cast his Influence toward Adams, who was elected on the f i r s t b a llo t. Though the Speaker's choice appears rath er logical because o f his g reater community o f In te re s t with the Secretary o f S tate 1n terms of 160Joseph G ales, J r . , to A lbert G alla tin , August 24, 1824, A lbert G allatin Papers, New-York H istorical Society. ^®°The popular vote was: Jackson, 152,933; Adams, 115,696; Crawford, 46,979; Clay, 47,136. N iles' Weekly R eg ister, February 12, 1825, p. 382. 338 domestic and foreign p o lic ie s—not to mention the g re a te r p o s s ib ility o f succeeding a N ew England man to the presidency—C lay's decision was greeted by howls o f "bargain and co rruption” from the Jacksonlans. The screams o f d erisio n were In te n sifie d when the v ic to r not su r p risin g ly designated the Kentuckian as the new Secretary of S tate. The Jacksonlans thus had an Issue which they would use not only 1n the next e lec tio n ag ain st Adams but a lso whenever C lay's case of "p resid en tial 1t1s" became p a rtic u la rly acute The congressional nomination system f e ll along with William H. Crawford. The reign o f King Caucus was over, and no serious attem pt was made to resto re his hegemony. In 1824, the year o f the r u le r 's demise, several vice-regents shared th e au th o rity : s ta te le g is la tiv e nom inations, s ta te convention nominations, and local nominations. These In stitu tio n s la te r exercised power In the tra n sitio n a l electio n of 1828 and then transm itted 1t In 1831 to a new monarch, the national nominating convention. A v ariety o f fac to rs caused the end o f the congressional caucus. The most d ire c t reason fo r the downfall o f th e system was the m ulti p lic ity o f strong candidates, a ll o f the same party and a ll but one working vigorously ag ain st the caucus nomination on e s s e n tia lly prag- 161 For an examination o f the corrupt bargain charge and how various h isto ria n s have tre a te d 1 t, see William G. Morgan, "Andrew Jackson Versus John Quincy Adams: Their Biographers and the 'Corrupt Bargain* Charge," Tennessee H istorical Q u arterly , X X V I (Spring, 1967), 43-58; "Henry C lay's biographers and the 'C orrupt Bargain' Charge," The R egister o f the Kentucky H isto rical S ociety, LXVI (Ju ly , 1968), 242-58; "The 'C orrupt bargain' Charge Against Clay and Adams: A n H istoriographical A nalysis," The Fllson Club H istory Q uarterly, XLII (A p ril, 1968), 132-49. 339 m atlc, though occasionally I d e a lis tic , grounds. The magnitude of th e ir e ffo rts was too g re a t fo r the already weakened In s titu tio n . W hen Crawford was repudiated by the v o te rs, the system shared the disgrace: I t was obvious th a t the e le c to ra te would have given the Georgian considerably more b a llo ts 1f they f e l t the caucus was a meaningful and v alid method of se le c tin g nominees. In ad d itio n , d esp ite some recent a r tic le s which have shown th a t actual voting In the 1820's and 1830's was less on a percentage basis compared to some e a r lie r e le c tio n s, th ere can be l i t t l e doubt th a t the growing dem ocratization o f American p o litic a l l i f e served to contribute to 162 the decline o f the caucus. Congressional nominations were Increas ingly viewed as a remnant o f the somewhat more a ris to c r a tic era In American p o litic s which was rapidly fading from the scene. W hen these two powerful forces combined 1n one e le c tio n , th e ir sy n erg istic re su lta n ts ensured the end o f the fra g ile caucus system. 162 Richard P. McCormick, "New Perspectives on Jacksonian P o litic s ," American H isto rical Review, L X V (January, I960), 288- 301. C H A PT E R V I A D A M S A N D O L D H IC K O R Y IN 1828: N O M IN A T IO N S IN TRANSITION The Era of Good Feelings was marked a t I ts beginning 1n 1816 by only nominal opposition to the Republican p resid en tia l candidate, a t I ts zenith In 1820 by no opposition, but a t I ts conclusion 1n 1824 by a vicious In tra -p a rty struggle among a number o f Republicans who sought to receive the mantle of Monroe. The victory of John Quincy Adams 1n the e lec tio n by the House o f R epresentatives 1n February of 1825, d esp ite h is having received fewer e le c to ra l and popular votes than Andrew Jackson, plus the anim osity generated by the corrupt bar gain charge, provided the necessary c a ta ly s ts to enable the divergent p o litic a l elements to begin to p o larize again. The Adams forces n a tu ra lly served as the nucleus a t one end o f th e p artisan spectrum, w hile Jackson—the scorned and re je c te d Hero—formed the power center a t the o th er end. The c ry sta lliz a tio n o f the two major p o litic a l elements did not occur overnight, e sp e c ia lly on the Jackson sid e. Though Old Hickory and his firm backers were almost Immediately looking to 1828, a moderately well defined opposition to the adm inistration could scarcely be discerned u n til 1826, and the Crawford fa ctio n , p a rtic u la rly , took th e ir time 1n moving to the Hero's com er. I t was evident almost Immediately a f te r Adams' e lectio n by the House th a t the next p resid en tial p riz e fig h t—th a t term Is per- 340 341 haps even more d e scrip tiv ely accurate and more accurately d escrip tiv e than the word e le c tio n —would p it Old Hickory against the N ew England Incumbent. Indeed, no party had y e t denied renomination to one of I ts own 1n the White House, d espite some rumblings on occasion. O n the other s id e , Jackson's noteworthy e le c to ra l and popular vote p lu ra lity , the poignancy of his d efeat 1n th e House, and the associated emotions o f those, both leaders and fo llo w ers, who f e l t th e ir ch ief had been cheated out of the p resid en tial ch air combined to point to the man from Tennessee as the obvious standard-bearer of the opposition. There was th erefo re l i t t l e question about who the nominees would be fo r the top o ffic e 1n the succeeding struggle but ra th e r about the means of nomination. King Caucus had been deposed by a s o rt of revolution 1n 1824 as h is candidate fin ish ed a poor th ird . What In s titu tio n would replace the fa lle n ru le r o f nomina tions? The King was dead. Long liv e the new what? The campaign, which was to reach a new low 1n p o litic a l ta c tic s and a new high 1n the In te n sity of p artisan passions, began soon a f te r the Representatives had cast th e ir lo t upon Adams as Monroe's successor. The bargain charge ag ain st Clay and Adams was reverberating throughout the land, o riginated and encouraged by Jackson's lieutenants and vigorously supported by the Hero him self. Old Hickory re ferre d , 1n f a c t, to the Kentuckian as "the Judas o f the W est."1 W hen Adams ^Jackson to William B. Lewis, February 14, 1825, Andrew Jackson Miscellaneous M anuscripts, New-York H isto rical Society. 342 offered Clay the S tate Department and Harry o f the West accepted, the Jacksonian cries o f outrage became even louder. The Speaker had pondered a t length about whether he should take the o ffe r, fin a lly concluding th a t he would be as lia b le to c ritic ism 1f he refused as I f he accepted. M any close advisors f e l t the same, and C lay's decision to en ter the Cabinet provoked a thunderclap of p artisan clamor. One confidant, John J . C rittenden, provided a concise analysis o f the s itu a tio n , In sistin g th a t a thousand outlaw s, " p o litic a l and m ilita ry . . . would think 1t a most honorable service to fo s te r a quarrel upon and shoot you. . . . You p refer Mr. Adams . . . and fo r th a t you are calumniated and so 1t would have been had you announced your preference fo r e ith e r of the other com petitors." C rittenden had advised him to take the o ffic e , despite the unsavory 2 comments. While some were disgusted by the abuse engendered by the charges, others f e l t the accusations were ju s tif ie d . Going to ra th e r extreme len g th s, a group of disappointed c itiz e n s were arrested In P ittsburgh because o f a r io t committed when the Kentuckian was burned 1n e ffig y . The bargain charge was thus to be a primary 3 weapon In the Jackson arsen al. 2 John J . Crittenden to Clay (copy), February 15, 1825, John J . C rittenden Papers, Library o f Congress. ^Francis Johnson to P eter Force, March 29, 1825, Hurja C ollection, Tennessee H isto rical Society. Edward G. W . B utler to Francis P. Lewis, February 15, 1825, Edward G. W . B utler Papers, Duke U niversity. William Henry Harrison to David K. E ste, March 3, 1825, William Henry Harrison Papers, Library of Congress. The Saturday Evening Post (P h ilad elp h ia), March 5, 1825, p. 2. Francis P. B lair to Clay, March 7, 1825; Am os Kendall to Clay, February 19* March 23, 1825; Hugh Mercer to Clay, April 7 , 1825, Henry Clay Papers, Library o f Congress. Andrew J . Donelson to John Coffee, February 19, 1825, Andrew J . 343 Some observers early predicted a d if f ic u lt term fo r Adams and small p o s s ib ilitie s o f h is re -e le c tio n . One N ew Yorker thought the President would be In worse p o litic a l shape a f te r four years 4 1n o ffic e than his fa th e r had been. A N ew Englander commented to Daniel Webster th a t "the king e le c t cannot an tic ip a te a very easy 5 throne." Adams could, o f course, count on the Clay factio n fo r support, but 1t was soon c le a r th a t Calhoun would be 1n opposition. A month a f te r the Inauguration, a Crawfordlte from North Carolina thought his ch ie f would be a candidate In 1828 1n addition to Jackson, though such hopes would n eith er be widespread nor long endure. Calhoun and others also thought D e W1tt Clinton had his eye on the p resid en tial p rize In 1828, but re la tiv e ly few considered Donelson Papers, Library o f Congress. Jackson to William P. Duval, July 25, 1825, Andrew Jackson Papers, Tennessee S tate Library and Archives. James Heaton to Charles M . Heaton, September 14, 1828, James Heaton Papers, Library of Congress. Edward Bates to J u lia Bates, February 25, 1828, Edward Bates Papers, V irginia H istorical Society. Robert Moore to John B. C. Lucas, February 1, 1828, Lucas C ollection, Missouri H isto rical Society. James Barbour to Burr Powell, November 19, 1827, Carter-Smlth Family Papers, U niversity o f V irginia. Thomas Hart Benton to F1n1s Ewing, February 14, [1828], Thomas Hart Benton Papers, Missouri H isto rical Society. An ex cellen t study o f the e lectio n of 1828 Is Robert V. Remlnl, The Election o f Andrew Jackson (Philadelphia and N ew York, 1963). See also Remlnl, Martin Van Buren and the Making o f the Democratic Party (New York and London, 1959). 4 Lot Clark to Roger Skinner, February 28, 1825; Edward Livingston to Van Buren, November 30, 1825, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library o f Congress. 5 Isaac Parker to Daniel Webster, February 19, 1825, Daniel Webster Papers, Library o f Congress. 344 him a su b stan tial contender.6 The adm inistration trie d unsuccessfully to a ttr a c t h is support by o fferin g him the diplom atic post a t the Court o f S t. James, much as 1t had trie d to c o n c ilia te Crawford by o fferin g to continue him as Treasury S ecretary. Clinton was a Jackson adherent 1n the electio n of 1824 and would continue to support the General 1n the absence o f any r e a lis tic p resid en tial hopes fo r him self. Thus, despite the presence of some peripheral hopefuls, they provided but a sideshow—though a ra th e r p e rsiste n t one In C lin to n 's case—while Old Hickory and Adams performed th e ir p artisan an tics In center ring 1n the sp o tlig h t of public concen t r a tio n .7 Having seen the n atio n 's top honor snatched from her s ta te unexpectedly, the Tennessee le g is la tu re lo st l i t t l e time In putting Jackson 1n the fie ld again and 1n going on record against the ad 6Samuel Bell to Levi Woodbury, February 19, 1825, Levi Woodbury Papers, Library o f Congress. Calhoun to Samuel L. Gouvemeur, June 10, 1825, Samuel L. Gouvemeur Papers, N ew York Public Library. Calhoun to J . G. Sw ift, March 10, 1825, 1n Thomas Robson Hay, e d ., "John C. Calhoun and the Election o f 1824: Some Unpublished Calhoun L e tte rs," American H istorical Review, X L (January, 1935), 295. Lewis Williams to B a rtle tt Yancey, April 4, 1825, B a rtle tt Yancey Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North C arolina. 7J . B. Colvin to P eter Force, M ay 13, 1825, P eter Force Papers, Library o f Congress. Clay to John J . C rittenden, August 25, 1825, John J . Crittenden Papers, Duke U niversity. Calhoun to Samuel L. Southard, August 16, 1825; Southard to Calhoun (e x tra c t), September 12, 1825, Samuel L. Southard Papers, Princeton U niversity. Isaac Munroe to John B ailey, January 17, 1826, John Bailey Papers, New- York H isto rical Society. Thomas H. Blake to Henry Clay, July 30, 1825, Thomas J . Clay Papers, Library o f Congress. James Buchanan to Jackson, M ay 29, 1825, In John B assett Moore, e d ., Works o f James Buchanan (10 v o ls ., N ew York, 1960), I , 138-39. 345 m in istra tio n . In becoming the f i r s t to nominate a candidate, the le g is la tu re launched a c ra fty plan o f a s sa u lt. In October o f 1825, reso lu tio n s were submitted In the upper house urging th a t a con s titu tio n a l amendment be passed to give the e le ctio n of President and V ice-President d ire c tly to th e people, w hile preserving the re la tiv e weight o f the s ta te s . Other reso lu tio n s took a stand ag ain st Adams and nominated Jackson; the package passed the s ta te senate 18-2 and sh o rtly a f te r was validated unanimously b«' the lower house. A committee was d irected to meet the Hero a t the s ta te cap ital to Inform him of the nomination. By combining Old Hickory's nomination with resolves favoring d ire c t choice of the P resid en t, the le g is la to rs had Id e n tifie d the cause of Jackson with th a t o f the people, with the reverse Im plication toward the O Adams-Clay party. Reactions to th is early beginning of the p o litic a l sweep stakes n atu rally varied. Jackson read ily accepted the challenge but determined to resign his se a t 1n the U. S. Senate, In sistin g th a t he preferred not to serve 1n Congress w hile he was a p resid en tial candidate. While agreeing with the recommended amendnents, he went fu rth e r by suggesting a provision—an obvious slap against Clay—under which no congressman would be e lig ib le fo r an executive appointment during the term fo r which he was chosen and fo r two 8N11es* Weekly R eg ister, October 29, 1825, p. 130; November 5, 1825, pp. 135-56; November 17, 1827, pp. 183-87. Jackson to John Coffee, October 30, 1825, John Coffee Papers, Oyas C ollection, Tennessee H isto rical Society. 346 years th e re a fte r. I f Jackson thought the nomination was an auspicious step In his campaign, Clay believed the move was too soon and done In the wrong way: he In siste d th a t "out o f Tennessee every body [s ic ] thinks 1t premature, and I am deceived 1f the time and the manner o f 1 t do not give him the coup de grace." Some of the Kentuckians agreed, and the nomination, along with le g isla tiv e committee's meeting with Jackson a t the Tennessee c a p ita l, seems to have excited less atten tio n than the Jacksonlans had hoped. I t was a s t a r t , however, and 1t helped to put the forces of the General on " o ffic ia l" sta tu s In the p artisan w arfare: Jackson was nominated and had accepted—there was to be no turning back from th is s te p . At th is stage of the c o n te st, however, p o litic a l polarizatio n was s t i l l Incomplete.^0 The Clay factio n had been larg ely tra n sfe rred to Adams to form one of the two emerging groups, but by early 1826 the fragments which would form the Jackson party—esp ecially the Crawfordltes—had y e t to j e l l with the forces of Old Hickory. Martin Van Buren remarked, fo r In stan ce, th a t "He o f the Crawford School lay upon our oars and w ill not lig h tly commit o u rse lv e s." ^ ^°Clay to James Brown, November 14, 1825; William C arroll to Clay, November 25, 1825; J . P. Ervin to Clay, December 12, 1825, Henry Clay Papers, Library of Congress. N iles' Weekly R eg ister, October 29, 1825, p. 130; November 5, 1825, pp. 155-50; January 14, 1826, pp. 315-16; November 17, 1827, p. 183. ^Van Buren to Benjamin F. B u tler, December 25, 1825, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library o f Congress. See also John C. Calhoun to Mlcah S te rlin g , December 16, 1825, John C. CalhounPapers, South CarolIniana L ibrary, U niversity o f South Carolina. 347 Problems working ag ain st Adams' re-elec tio n could be seen 1n the early p art o f his term. One d iffic u lty was the P resid e n t's p artisan iqyopla—perhaps an h ered itary ailm ent—which prevented him from exercising the patronage with the Idea o f building a party organization. Comments were made about h is fa ilu re to appoint his supporters to o ffic e , p a rtic u la rly 1n N ew York, and Adams' lack of understanding about rewarding party fa ith fu ls was a cause of his d eterio ratin g stren g th and an aid to the burgeoning opposition. As one Empire s ta te p o litic ia n observed to John W . Taylor, " If an adm inistration can su stain I t s e l f with . . . Its favours bestowed upon the partisans o f riv a l candidates, I w ill agree th a t the age of m iracles has retu rn ed ." Some o f his adherents were b lis s fu lly Ignorant o f the p o te n tia l stren g th of the opposition, however, and 17 continued to fo recast re -e le c tio n o f the N ew Englander. In early 1826, the opponents o f the adm inistration seized on the Pan-American conference to be held 1n Panama: Instead o f merely appointing delegates to the convention, Adams threw open the door fo r c ritic ism by asking the Senate fo r au th o rity to send rep resen tativ es. One analyst asserted th a t the opposition developed on th is diplom atic question because a c o a litio n was 1n the process of forming "to ^Jam es Tallmadge, J r . to Taylor, February 2, 22, March 4, 1826; Ebenezer Sage to T aylor, February 27, 1826, John W . Taylor Papers, New-York H istorical Society. Henry Clay to Francis T. Brooke (copy), February 20, 1826, Thomas J . Clay C ollection, Library o f Congress. Clay to James Tallmadge, March 16, 1826, Henry Clay Miscellaneous M anuscripts, New-York H isto rical Society. Henry Clay to P eter B. P o rte r, February 22, 1826, P eter B. P orter Papers, Buffalo and Erie County H istorical S ociety. dismount the present rid e r a t the end o f his 4 y e a rs." Some a n ti- Adams a c tiv is ts , Including Jackson, took considerable exception to the P resid en t's n a tio n a lis tic program, notably building a national observatory and a national u n iv ersity , which he recommended In his 13 f i r s t s ta te o f the Union message. The candidacy o f the Hero received another boost from a Pennsylvania s ta te convention held on March 4 , 1826. The meeting convened a t Harrisburg prim arily fo r the purpose o f making a gubernatorial nomination, but a resolution passed which favored Jackson and approved his conduct. James Buchanan, a Jacksonian, In siste d th a t the reso lu tio n su b sta n tia lly though not form ally nominated the Tennessean. A d ire c t nomination could have been obtained, he thought, except th a t some delegates believed th e ir gathering was re s tric te d 1n au th o rity to nominating a candidate fo r governor.^4 Simon Cameron, an adm inistration supporter, said by co n trast th a t the resolution was m isleading and pointed to the fa ilu re o f the resolution which d ire c tly nominated Jackson was a signal th a t h is cause had slipped 1n the Keystone s ta te . In any case, the quasi-nomination was another step 1n the process of ^W illiam F. Wickham to L ittle to n W . Tazewell, February 8 , 1826 John Wickham to Tazewell, April 23, 1826, Tazewell Family Papers, V irginia S tate Library. Lewis Williams to B a rtle tt Yancey, [1825], B a rtle tt Yancey Papers, Southern H istorical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. Jackson to John Branch, March 3, 1826, Branch Family Papers, Southern H istorical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. 14 Buchanan to Jackson, March 8 , 1826, In Moore, Works of Buchanan, I , 173-74. N iles' Weekly R eg ister, March 11, 1826, p. 21. 349 naming the candidate who would lead the opposition forces against the Incumbent.15 Secretary of S tate Clay was considerably unhappy about the use o f the corrupt bargain charge against him and Adams by the Jacksonlans as a campaign Issu e. In the spring o f 1826, John Randolph called the adm inistration p arty a union of the "Puritan and th e Blackleg," which led to a duel between the cau stic Virginian and th e offended Kentuckian. Though the outcome was harmless, the duel h u rt Clay 1n some c irc le s and re fle c te d on the adm inistration In g en eral, no doubt causing the Adams men to wish Clay could re s tra in his temper more e ffe c tiv e ly . But 1t would take more than a p isto l fig h t to d erail the adm inistration express which was moving, they hoped, 1n the d ire ctio n of r e - e le c tio n J 6 By mld-1826, V ice-President Calhoun was p re tty clea rly 1n the Jackson camp, having leaned In th a t d ire ctio n since he assumed o ffic e . There was l i t t l e danger th a t he would have gone fo r Adams In view of h is condemnation of the means by which the President had been e le c te d , though some of the C aro lin ian 's friends probably wished he would run fo r the top o ffic e him self 1n 1828. Jackson, however, was obviously the leader around w hom the opposition was 15Cameron to Samuel L. Southard, March 6 , 1826, Samuel L. Southard Papers, Princeton U niversity. Richmond Enquirer, October 5, 1827, p. 4. 16J . B. Moore to Levi Woodbury, April 17, 1826, Levi Woodbury Papers, Library o f Congress. S ylvester S. Southworth to Clay, April 20, 1826, Henry Clay Papers, Library o f Congress. James Brown to Samuel Smith, M ay 22, 1826, Samuel Smith Papers, Library of Congress. 350 gathering, so Calhoun followed h is In clin a tio n s to postpone his bid fo r the presidency. The V ice-President would p a rtic ip a te 1n the Jackson movement, hoping to become Old H ickory's h e ir a p p a re n tJ7 The General responded favorably to Calhoun's sentim ents and Implied In a l e t t e r w ritten In July of 1826 th a t he wanted a Jackson-Calhoun 18 tic k e t to oppose Adams. Before the campaign was over, the candidates would receive the nomination of many local meetings In addition to being named by s ta te conventions and s ta te le g is la tu re s . A n early local gathering favorable to Jackson was held 1n Hay o f 1826 1n P hiladelphia, where the group pledged th e ir support to the Tennessee candidate. Some thought th is action represented weakness ra th e r than stren g th , however. W hy would the Jackson lieu ten an ts make such an early move unless they feared a decline 1n th e ir c h ie f's popularity. I t seems c le a r th a t the op p o sitio n 's stren g th had not declined as the admin is tr a tio n forces had hoped. This Jackson meeting appears to have motivated the holding of an Adams gathering In N ew Jersey In the early summer, which pledged th e ir support to the adm inistration. Indeed, I t became more obvious as 1826 progressed th a t the N ew England Incumbent and the Tennessee Insurgent would be the candl- 17Calhoun to L ittle to n W . Tazewell, June 13, 1826, John Calhoun Papers, Library o f Congress. 18 Calhoun to Jackson, June 4, 1826; Jackson to Calhoun, July 26, 1826, In B assett, Correspondence o f Jackson, I I I , 304-5, 308. John Nicholson to William C. Rives, November 18, 1826, William C. Rives Papers, Library o f Congress. Samuel Smith to William H. Crawford, October 12, 1826, Samuel Smith Papers, Library o f Congress. 351 dates fo r 1826; congressional ele ctio n s 1n some s ta te s were decided by the respective candidates' preference fo r e ith e r Jackson o r Adams. Numerous local meetings of the two candidates began to appear which, 1n e f f e c t, provided additional nominations fo r the IQ two contenders. 17 During 1826, th ere were some e ffo rts to prod Clinton to g et Into the race. Arguing th a t N ew York deserved to provide the next P resid en t, 1n the spring one man suggested Clinton should be the can d id ate.20 There were other mentions o f his possibly entering the c o n te st, Including warnings to Jackson th a t the N ew Y orker's surface support o f the Hero tem porarily masked his real d esire to r u n . I n d e e d , one analyst remarked th a t two N ew York City papers were working fo r C linton's candidacy, and Van Buren also thought his riv a l might try fo r the presidency. Other reports Indicated Clinton had decided to content him self with subordinating his d esires to those of the Tennessee candidate, esp ecially I f he could run fo r 19N11es' Weekly R eg ister, June 3, 1826, p. 235; July 8, 1826, p. 335; September 2 , 1 826, pp. 1, 4-5; October 7, 1826, p. 83. P. S. Markley to Henry Clay, M ay 30, 1826; John Geddes to Clay, September 7, 1826, Henry Clay Papers, Library o f Congress. Clay to J . S. Johnston (copy), August 2, 1826, Thomas J . Clay C ollection, Library o f Congress. Isaac Southard to Samuel L. Southard, June 7, 1826, Samuel L. Southard Papers, Princeton U niversity. Joseph Clarke to John B ailey, August 18, 1826, John Bailey Papers, New- York H isto rical Society. 20Nathan1el King to D e W1tt C linton, March 27, 1826, De W1tt Clinton Papers, Columbia U niversity. 2^James Heaton to John McLean ( d ra f t), October 29, 1826, James Heaton Papers, Library o f Congress. Arthur P. Hayne to Jackson, July 20, 1826; Henry Lee to Jackson, September 14, 1826, 1n B assett, Correspondence o f Jackson, I I I , 306-7, 312-13. 352 V ice-President on th e same tic k e t. I t Is d o u b tfu l, however, whether he gave much serious consideration to accepting the oppor tu n ity to run ag ain st Jackson. I t was s t i l l e s se n tia lly a two-man game.22 During the l a t t e r p a rt o f the year, several more s ta te le g isla tu re s considered the question of nominating Jackson. A resolution supporting him fo r President was Introduced Into the lower house In Georgia during November, and I t passed 1n December by a vote of 101-9. The upper house subsequently concurred 1n the motion. In ad d itio n , a caucus of South Carolina le g isla to rs 1n December adopted a resolution by a vote of 135-2 Indicating th a t s ta te 's support fo r Old Hickory 1n 1828. A motion naming Jackson as a candidate narrowly lo s t, 19-17, 1n the I llin o is lower house, however.23 John H. Eaton, a close advisor of the General, worked to keep the b all ro llin g by asking a North Carolinian to work fo r a nomination In th a t s ta t e 's le g is la tu re .2* Other b en eficial developments occurred fo r Jackson during 22james Tallmadge, J r . , to John W . Taylor, December 1, 1826, John W . Taylor Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. P eter B. P orter Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. P eter B. P orter to Henry Clay, M ay 9, October 8, 1826, Henry Clay Papers, Library o f Congress. John C. Hamilton to Martin Van Buren, December 21, 1826, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library of Congress. John J . C rittenden to Clay, November 25, 1826, John J . C rittenden Papers, Duke U niversity. 23N11es' Weekly R egister, November 25, 1826, p. 193; January 6, 1827, p. 290; January 13, 1827, 308. **Eaton to William Polk (ty p e sc rip t), December 19, 1826, William Polk Papers, North Carolina Department of Archives and H istory. 353 la te 1826 as w ell. Martin Van Buren, a notable leader of the Crawford elem ents, decided to swing his support to the man from Tennessee by working fo r a co alitio n o f the various opposition fa c tio n s; he began 1n December by meeting with the V ice-President and committing most of the Crawford group to an a llia n c e with the Calhoun fo rce s, thereby bringing the two camps together behind Jackson. This move had already been predicted and a warning was 25 communicated to the adm inistration forces. Even before the N ew Yorker and the C arolinian met, Calhoun observed th a t the "lin e between p a rtie s . . . Is becoming more d is tin c t, and there must gradually grow up two reg u larly organized p a rtie s out of the present s ta te o f th in g s, which must of course go through a stru g g le . . . fo r ascendency." Moreover, Duff Green, the Jacksonian e d ito r o f the United S ta te s ' Telegraph, began talk in g about forming a Jackson 26 central com nlttee 1n Washington. One o f the f i r s t agreements to come out of the newly- formed opposition a llia n c e was a proposal by Calhoun fo r a national nominating convention; the L ittle Magician f e l t such a move would 25 James Brown to Henry Clay, October 22, 1826, Henry Clay Papers, Library o f Congress. Van Buren to P. N. Nicholas ( d ra f t), October 13, 1826, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library o f Congress. Calhoun to , February 3, 1827, John C. Calhoun Papers, Duke U niversity. George M . Bibb to Felix Grundy, February 5, 1827, Felix Grundy Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. Sam Houston to Jackson, January 5, 1827, In B asse tt, Correspondence o f Jackson, I I I , 331. Remlnl, Martin Van Buren and the Democratic P arty , 128-29. 26 Calhoun to M1cah S te rlin g , December 16, 1826, John C. Calhoun Papers, South Carol1n1ana L ibrary, U niversity o f South C arolina. Green to V irgil Maxcy, October 21, 1826, Galloway-Maxcy-Markoe Papers, Library o f Congress. 354 provide Insurance against the p o ssib ility o f a m u ltip lic ity o f can d id ates. Van Buren a t th is time thought Clinton would try to jo in the 11st o f p resid en tial candidates, though his fe a r on th is count was probably exaggerated. The Albany Argus published an a r tic le on the convention question, and the Idea o f such a meeting brought prompt opposition from some Clinton jo u rn als. A ctually, Van Buren said his a ttitu d e was s u ffic ie n tly fle x ib le to perm it a congressional caucus or a national convention, though p referrin g the l a t t e r because 1t would prevent the embarrassment "of those who have or profess to have scruples" ag ain st the caucus. The convention would also be "more 1n unison with the s p i r i t of the tim es." Other projected advantages of the convention, he thought, Included I ts a b ility to concentrate the vote of the opposition and to aid 1n organizing the Jackson party; to ensure the nomination of Jackson; to force a d iv isio n between the Adams and Jackson camps, thereby drawing p arty lin e s again—a fe a t which s ta te nominations alone would be unable to accomplish; to aid 1n esta b lish in g p rin cip les among Republicans 1n the northern and middle s ta te s as more sig n ific a n t than geographic considerations; and to re -e sta b lish the party on a base of an a llia n c e between the "planters of the South and the p lain Republicans of the North." The revival o f the two old p a r tie s , he thought, would prevent the development of s tr ic tly sectio n al p artisan sh ip . But I f a caucus were thought to be more p ra c tic a b le , Van Buren f e l t 1t would work w ell, despite I ts abysmal fa ilu re In 1824. There were now e s se n tia lly but two groups—one fo r Jackson and one fo r Adams. Van Buren and Calhoun, 355 however, both favored a strong movement fo r a national convention and Mere s o lic itin g the jo u rn a lis tic aid of such as Thomas R itchie and his Richmond Engulrer. 2^ In c o n trast to those who favored not more than two candidates, a few observers were d istre sse d by the prospect o f not esp ecially 11 king e ith e r contender. Wrote one: I lik e n e ith e r the Hon nor the unicorn. . . . So fa r as I am concerned, I can compare the competition to nothing but the s e ttin g before me two persons o f d iffe re n t kinds, but both egually offensive and egually deadly, and regulrlng m e to make the choice between them—E ither may be forced down m y th ro a t, but 1 t w ill be very d if f ic u lt fo r m e to make the ch o ice.28 Thus, the p o litic a l smorgasbord looked somewhat bare to th is w rite r. There was considerable controversy over what method—1f any— would be used to make a national nomination. The N ew York National Advocate predicted early In March o f 1827 th a t there would be a congressional caucus to name the p resid en tial and v1ce-pres1dent1a1 candidates; the meeting would probably be held sometime during the next session of Congress toward the end of the year. The Advocate mentioned the term "convention" as well but seemed to Indicate the operation of the system was e s se n tia lly the same whatever the name: the a r tic le Implies th a t the congressmen would serve as the delegates 1f a convention were c alle d . The 11st o f candidates from which 27 Van Buren to Thomas R itchie (copy), January 13, 1827, Martin Van Buren Papers. 28B. W . Leigh to L ittle to n W . Tazewell, January 24, 1827, Tazewell Family Papers, V irginia S tate Library. 356 the two nominees—who would be sure to win e le ctio n —were to be selected Included Jackson, Adams, Calhoun, Clay, C linton, and Van Buren. Such a sim p listic view o f the p o ten tial unity of the former Republican party was obviously In e rro r 1n view of the su b stan tial elements behind both Adams and Jackson, n eith er of which would have surrendered merely because the o ther group succeeded 1n nominating th e ir ch ief e ith e r by caucus or by convention.29 The In te llig e n c e r responded to the Advocate by denouncing th e ir Idea of the Congress sele c tin g a President. Moreover, the paper accused Van Buren—and co rrectly so—o f having worked during the previous w inter to co-ordinate the e ffo rts of the anti-adm inis tra tio n forces and In siste d th a t a se rie s of meetings had been held a t which a course o f action on the p resid en tial question had been arranged. From th is agreement, the In te llig e n c e r thought, the leaders o f these forces would make th e ir nomination—ra th e r than the people's—a t the next sessio n . The N ew Yorker, 1n fa c t, was accused o f promising to d e liv e r his s ta te 's votes to the supposed caucus. Thus did the journal declare I ts opposition to any such caucus, one which would doubtless nominate Old Hickory 1n response to the planning of Van Buren and his fello w s.30 The Albany Argus, a paper devoted to the Regency lead er, rep lied 1n turn to the In te llig e n c e r by In sistin g th a t there would 29 National Advocate, March 2, 1827, 1n the National In tellig en cer, March 9 ,”1827, p. 2. 30 I n t e l l i g e n c e r , March 9 , 1827, p . 3. 357 be no congressional caucus to make national nominations fo r th e p resid en tial race. A primary reason was the absence o f any neces s ity o f such an e ffo rt: "There w ill be. . . but two candidates before the people; and there w ill be no s o rt o f ju s tif ic a tio n 1n the attem pt to nominate one of these to the people. They w ill 31 make th e ir own selectio n w ithout any nomination o r advisement." The Richmond Enquirer joined 1n the chorus by declaring th at th ere 32 would be no caucus nor was one needed. These p rin ts expressed the sentiments o f th e m ajority. Adams and Jackson were c le arly 1n the race to the v irtu a l exclusion of anyone e ls e , and n eith er a caucus nomination nor the lack o f 1t would a l te r the nature o f the co n test. Van Buren, Calhoun and th e ir fellow Jacksonlans came to appreciate th is and th erefo re never Implemented th e ir convention p lans. In such circum stances, nominations by s ta te le g is la tu re s , s ta te le g isla tiv e caucuses, and s ta te conventions, plus various local forms o f naming the national candidates, were more than adequate. King Caucus had been shattered Irrevocably In 1824, and the few thoughts o f resto rin g him were doomed to u tte r fa ilu re . The year 1827 witnessed additional s ta te and local nomina tions o f Old Hickory. A local Jackson convention was held 1n Baltimore 1n ea rly March; the meeting passed reso lu tio n s favoring 31Arqus, March 30, 1827, p. 2; April 10, 1827, p. 2; April 17, 1827, p .“ 2?Tfoy 21, 1827, p. 2. 32E n q u 1 re r, A p ril 2 0 , 1827, p . 2. th e ir ch ief fo r the presidency and recommending a s ta te convention fo r May. The nominating scene fo r Jackson was sim ila r on the Vir g in ia sid e. A meeting 1n Fauquier county on March 26 resolved 1n favor of a Jackson-Calhoun tic k e t, while sim ila r meetings 1n several o th er counties In April considered only the p resid en tial question, naming Old Hickory as th e ir candidate. The V ice-President did receive support fo r re -e le ctio n 1n some, though not a l l , areas. The pro-Jackson local meetings continued to appear ra th e r frequently throughout the y ea r. A gathering favoring the General was held In mid-August 1n Cumberland county, fo r example, while others were promoted during October, Including one a t Lynchburg. A number o f additional Jackson meetings tran sp ired 1n November and December as w ell. These local convocations passed reso lu tio n s urging Jackson's e le c tio n , often approving o f the plan fo r the V irginia le g is la tiv e caucus—as usual—to s e le c t an e le c to ra l tic k e t and to nominate a candidate. There was some ta lk a t some o f these gatherings th a t a convention composed o f elected delegates should f u l f i l l th is ro le . A few meetings believed the le g is la tiv e caucus to be acceptable except fo r those areas represented by le g isla to rs opposed to Old Hickory; these d i s t r i c t s , 1 t was reasoned, should se le c t delegates to p a rtic ip a te w ith the Jacksonlans In Richmond. Indeed, th is mixed convention format was ultim ately adopted. Sometimes the a n tl- adm lnlstration forces were ju s t th a t—anti-Adams but unw illing to commit themselves to Jackson a t the tim e. Frequently, the supporters o f the General contented themselves with attending a convention In the cause of an ti-ad m in istratio n e ffo rts without In sistin g on th e ir 359 own way; In the fin a l an a ly sis, the "anti" forces generally came Into 33 th e support o f Jackson, anyway. Though a resolution recommending Jackson fo r the presidency fa ile d In the Pennsylvania senate In January, the candidate found 34 a more receptive clim ate elsewhere 1n the s ta te . A large local meeting 1n Southwark on March 21 unanimously adopted a resolution to support the Hero, while a Republican le g is la tiv e caucus declared In early April th a t they considered him the choice of the s ta te , as he had been In 1824. The caucus also recommended th a t the various sen ato rial and rep resen tativ e d is tr ic ts choose delegates to convene a t Harrisburg on January 8 , 1828—the anniversary of the B attle o f N ew Orleans—to make an o ffic ia l nomination fo r the presidency. A s 1n many s ta te s , local Jackson nominations were 35 made from time to time throughout 1827. Some leaders 1n the adm inistration party were unimpressed, however, with the Jackson nomination a c tiv itie s In the Keystone s ta te and continued to be N iles' Weekly R eg ister, April 7, 1827, p. 102; M ay 26, 1827, p. 210. J . S. Barbour to Calhoun, April 17, 1827, John C. Calhoun Papers, Clemson U niversity. Richmond Enquirer, March 27, 1827, p. 3; April 13, 1827, p. 2; M ay 1, 1827, p. 3; May 16, 1820; M ay 22, 1827, p. 3; November 13, 1827, p. 2; November 16, 1827, p. 2; November 23, 1827, p. 2. Telegraph, November 27, 1827, p. 3; December 5, 1827, p. 2; December 1 1 , 18Z7, p. 2. 34 The Pennsylvania senate Indicated th e ir b e lie f th a t Jackson would win the s ta te but believed they should have no d ire c t agency 1n the campaign. Albany Argus, February 1, 1827, p. 2. 35 Richmond Enquirer, March 27, 1827, p. 3; September 18, 1827, p. 3. N iles' Weekly R eg ister, December 1, 1827, p. 212. Telegraph, November 26, 1827, p. 3; November 29, 1827, p. 2; December 6, “8 2 /, p. 2. 360 o p tim istic about Adams' chances.36 Results fo r the Tennessee candidate 1n additional sta te s were mixed. N ew York was another pivotal s ta te 1n which many local Jackson meetings were convened. In Louisiana, however, attempts fa ile d to launch a meaningful le g is la tiv e caucus to nominate Jackson; la te r In the y ear, however, there were some local meetings which contributed th e ir nomination of the Hero. By c o n tra st, the I llin o is house o f rep resen tativ es In February reversed an action o f the previous year by passing a reso lu tio n recommending the General fo r the presidency by a vote o f 19-11. Even 1n Henry C lay's home s ta te a conclave of Jackson men was held a t Frankfort 1n M ay and resolved to work fo r th e ir ch ief and against Adams; th is meeting also provided fo r the s ta te Jackson convention to gather to make an o ffic ia l nomination on January 8, 1828. Of course, subsequent gatherings were also held on the local le v e l. Despite I ts geo graphical lo catio n , N ew Hampshire witnessed some local Jackson conclaves as w ell, and Ohio was by no means l e f t out. N ew Jersey was another which p a rtic ip a te d In sim ila r a c tiv itie s . In fa c t, v irtu a lly a ll the s ta te s got In to the Jackson act In some fashion. 36Henry Clay to Daniel W ebster, April 14, 1827, Daniel Webster Papers, Library o f Congress. Samuel M ifflin to Clay, April 22, 1827, Henry Clay Papers, Library o f Congress. Clay to James Brown, May 30, 1827, McGregor C ollection, U niversity o f V irginia. 37N11es' Weekly R egister, April 7, 1827, p. 103. Richmond Enquirer, March 27, 1827, p. 3; June 8 , 1827, p. 2; October 2, 1827, p. 3; October 19, 1827, p. 4; January 26, 1828, p. 3. Telegraph, October 8 , 1827, p. 2; November 21, 1827, p. 3. Albany~~ftrqus, October 23, 1827, p. 2; December 14, 1827, p. 2. N. S ta rr to Gideon W elles, November 30, 1827, Gideon Welles Papers, Library o f Congress. The adm inistration forces apparently f e l t le ss urgency 1n g e ttin g the Adams nomination show on the road because o f th e ir In cumbent s ta tu s , but they soon were prodded Into action by the activ e opposition e ffo rts to use th is means to th ru s t Jackson to the fo refro n t 1n the public mind. In 1827, various county meetings 1n Kentucky, fo r In stance, passed reso lu tio n s supporting the P re si d e n t's re -e le c tio n . Sim ilar local gatherings 1n Pennsylvania, Maryland, N ew Hampshire, Louisiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, I llin o is , M issouri, N ew York and M assachusetts, to name se v era l, also adopted declarations 1n favor of the Incumbent. In a d d itio n , plans were arranged by the Adams—as well as the Jackson—party to have numerous meetings on July 4. In V irginia and North C arolina, a number of so- -c a lle d anti-Jackson gatherings met. These groups were e s se n tia lly pro-adm 1n1strative but often h e sita te d to Id en tify o v ertly with Adams 1n view of th e ir re la tiv e stre n g th , feelin g th a t more p o litic a l hay could be made on the basis o f anti-Jackson than on pro-Adams. The e f fo r t fo r the President also stumbled occasionally: when reso lu tio n s 1n h is favor were Introduced Into the N ew Hampshire le g is la tu re , they were In d e fin ite ly postponed. The Vermont le g is la tu re , by c o n tra st, 38 passed resolutions speaking fo r the P resid e n t's re -e le c tio n . Daniel Webster, In fa c t, suggested th a t the N ew England le g isla tu re s be urged to come out fo r Adams' re -elec tio n during the summer of 1827; Henry f i l e s ' Weekly R egister, April 7, 1827, pp. 102-3; November 24, 1827',— pp'.'T95-9b; December 29, 1827, p. 277. National In telH g en - c e r, April 25, 1827, p. 2; M ay 8, 1827, p. 2; June 5, T828, p. 3; Tune 8 , 1827, p. 2; June 12, 1827, p. 2; June 28, 1827, p. 3; December 13, 1827, p. 2. 362 Clay agreed but urged th a t such demonstrations 1n support of the admin is tra tio n candidate be made 1n other sections as w ell. Despite feelin g among some In th e adm inistration party during 1827 th a t Clay should run Instead of Adams and ta lk —larg ely among Jacksonlans—a fte r Harry of the West refused th a t Clinton o r Crawford might be used fo r the same ro le , the P resident was not about to r e tir e nor would his many p artisan s 1n the party permit the malcontents to pull a 39 switch play. A la te rep o rt In December Indicated th a t some Adams men were discouraged—1n fa c t "chop-fallen"—and th a t the party would dump the Incumbent to run Clay Instead. The extent o f the purge Adams feeling was exaggerated, of course; he would be the adm inistration 40 standard-bearer. The y ear 1827 also witnessed some o f the sporadic p artisan sideshows which featured p o lltlcan s o th er than Adams and Jackson as p o ten tial contenders fo r the f i r s t o ffic e . The most freguent P h ilip S. Markley to Henry Clay, M ay 19, 1827; Webster to Cloy, April 14, 1827; P eter B. P orter to Clay, M ay 1, 1827; W . B. Rochester to Clay, November 4, 1827, Henry Clay Papers, Library of Congress. John J . C rittenden to Clay, October 30, 1827, John J . C rittenden Papers, Duke U niversity. Richmond Engujjrer, M ay 4 , 1827, p. 1; October 2, 1827, p. 3; November 13, 1827, p. 3. Albany Argus, June 29, 1827, p. 2. Telegraph, November 28, 1827, p. 2. Duff Green to G arrlt Miner, October 14, 1827, Duff Green Letterbook, Library o f Congress. George Ervlng to William H. Crawford, William H. Crawford Papers, Duke U niversity. William Burke to John McLean, November 2, 1827, John McLean Papers, Library o f Congress. *°Teleqraph, December 8, 1827, p. 3. N. H. Barker to David Daggett, December 7, 1827, David Daggett Papers, Belnecke L ibrary. Yale U niversity. performer In th is capacity throughout the campaign was D e W1tt C linton. P u b licly , Clinton was a declared supporter o f Old Hickory as was his perennial N ew York r iv a l, Martin Van Buren. A ctually, there was considerable ta lk o f a nascent c o a litio n between the two men In favor o f Jackson, though the truce was never fin a liz e d because, among o th er th in g s, o f C linton's unexpected death In February o f 1828. The adm inistration troops n atu ra lly d islik ed the prospect o f such an agreement which would v irtu a lly ensure th a t a large p a rt o f the Empire s ta t e 's bloc of e le c to ra l votes would go 41 fo r the opposition candidate. One wrote th a t a frien d thought I t "uncertain whether Mr. Clinton has seduced Van Buren or Van Buren Mr. Clinton but he 1s q u ite confident of the fo rn icatio n between 42 them, and very Indignant a t th e ir Infringement of the decalogue." But d esp ite h is public d eclaration 1n favor o f the General, Clinton was urged as la te as the la s t few months of 1827 to run fo r the f i r s t o ffic e . The N ew Yorker was even nominated fo r the post by a few local meetings 1n New York and his pretensions were urged 1n some news papers, but he quickly squelched the movement In his b eh alf, In sistin g 43 on his devotion to the p resid en tial fortunes of Old Hickory. Some ^ D a n ie l Webster to Henry Clay, April 14, 1827; Clay to Webster, April 20, 1827; P eter B. P orter to Clay, M ay 1, June 11, 1827, Henry Clay Papers, Library o f Congress. David Campbell to James Campbell, March 29, 1827, David Campbell Papers, Duke U niversity. 42 Rudolph Bunner to Gullan C. Verplanck, April 28, 1827, Gullan C. Verplanck Papers, New-York H istorical Society. ^ H e c to r Craig to C linton, October 17, 1827; "A Virginian" to C linton, November 20, 1827, D e W1tt Clinton Papers, Columbia Univer s ity . adm inistration ta c tic ia n s , however, thought Clinton was throwing his support to the Jackson camp with the hope Old Hickory would be dropped and him self be put forward as the opposition candidate. This aspect of the Clinton sideshow was even more ridiculous than the o th ers. I t 1s doubtful, Indeed, th a t the N ew Yorker serio u sly expected th a t such a situ a tio n would develop, unless the Hero's health should s ig n ific a n tly d e te rio ra te . One observer, however, suggested a p o s sib ility th a t was more unlikely than a su b stitu tio n of Clinton 44 fo r Jackson: a replacement of Adams by C linton. O n the o ther side o f the N ew York p o litic a l coin, one adm inistration s tr a te g is t even thought Van Buren might be put 1n the G eneral's place, but th is 45 opinion also had very l i t t l e following. The an tics 1n the Crawford arena were ra th e r more hapless than the Clinton "candidacy"—perhaps "non-cand1dacy" 1s more accurate. The erstw hile Treasury Secretary never re a lly even approached the cen ter ring o f the two serious a sp ira n ts. Indeed, precious few spectators took even passing notice of his p o ten tial sta tu s as a p resid en tial hopeful. One April meeting composed of p a rtic ip a n ts from several counties 1n V irginia passed a statem ent declaring 46 against Jackson but 1n favor o f Crawford. A N ew Jersey supporter 44 M1cah S te rlin g to Simeon Baldwin, September 22, 1827, Baldwin Papers, Belnecke L ibrary, Yale U niversity. Van Buren to Jackson, November 4, 1827, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library of Congress. Richmond Enquirer, November 9, 1827, p. 3. N iles' Weekly R eqlster, November ? C W 7 , p. 196. ------------------ 45P eter B. P o rter to Henry Clay, August 19, 1827, Henry Clay Papers, Library o f Congress. 46 Richmond E n q u ire r , A p ril 10, 1827, p . 3. o f the adm inistration reported th a t he was to ld su b stan tial con sid eratio n was being given by some Masons 1n his s ta te to the 47 p o s s ib ility o f running the Georgian. Crawford him self seems to have had some In te re s t 1n p a rtic ip a tin g 1n the game but was too r e a lis tic to take th e trouble 1n view of his v irtu a lly non-existent prospects. The only Instance 1n which he might have any chance was I f one of the two major candidates withdrew, and th is pos s ib i l i t y was discounted as almost In c o n c e iv a b le /8 There were some accusations made by c ertain Jacksonlans near the end of 1827 th a t Crawford—as well as Clinton—might be run 1n addition to Adams In order to divide the Old Hickory's ranks, but the reports were 49 l i t t l e more than p artisan sniping. The most ex citin g controversy 1n terms of nominations In the electio n o f 1828 apart from the various methods of selectin g candidates concerned the v1ce-pres1dent1al question on both sid es. Long a f te r the two hopefuls fo r the top o ffic e were firm ly fixed In the public mind, the contenders fo r the second spot remained undetermined. In th e Jackson camp, some lead ers, notably Duff Green o f the United S ta te s' Telegraph, looked toward the continuation 47 Isaac Southard to Samuel L. Southard, M ay 16, 1827, Samuel L. Southard Papers, Princeton U niversity. ip Crawford to Martin Van Buren, August 15, 1827, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library of Congress. George Ervlng to Crawford, November 1, 1827, William H. Crawford Papers, Duke U niversity. 49 Albany Argus, October 19, 1827, p. 2. Telegraph, December 8, 1827, p. 3. Richmond Enquirers November 16, 1827, p. 3; December 28, 1827, p. 3. o f Calhoun 1n o ffic e . The Vice-President had Indicated his loyalty to the Jackson cause not long a f te r Adams was Inaugurated, and Old Hickory seemed to h in t th a t he was re la tiv e ly well disposed to the prospect o f having Calhoun as his running mate. But, during 1827, th ere was some ta lk th a t the Carolinian would be purged 1n favor o f Clinton to ensure the l e t t e r 's support fo r Jackson. One o f the pro-C linton papers 1n N ew York even mentioned the likelihood o f a Jackson-CHnton tic k e t. Indeed, the Regency 1n N ew York feared th a t Clinton and company would c all a meeting to nominate th e ir p ro p rie to r on a s la te led by Old Hickory before the Van Buren faction could name Jackson 1n a s ta te le g is la tiv e caucus. Since such a move was more lik e ly to develop 1f Calhoun were to be the obvious fav o rite o f the Van Buren fo rces, the L ittle Magician and his associates determined to avoid making an Issue of the v1ce-pres1dent1a1 question, p referrin g ra th e r to emphasize th e ir support o f the Hero.50 Van Buren wrote Jackson In September th at In N ew York the Issue would be l e f t alone. Van Buren was also thought to be a possible running mate, but he and his frien d s quickly declined any such Idea. The admin is tr a tio n employed the question against the L ittle Magician, however: the charge by the National In te llig e n ce r th a t Van Buren was working 50Comel1us P. Van Ness to Van Buren, February 22, 1827; J . S. Schermerhom to Van Buren, July 11, 1827, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library o f Congress. Albany Argus, March 20, 1827, p. 2. Richmond Enquirer, March 23, 1827, p. 3; April 10, 1827, p. 3; April 13, 1827, p. 3; M ay 29, 1827, p. 3. W . B. Rochester to Henry Clay, September 17, 1827, Henry Clay Papers, Library of Congress. S ilas Wright to Azarlah C. Flagg, December 20, 1827, Azarfah C. Flagg Papers, N ew York Public L ibrary. Remlnl, Martin Van Buren and the Democratic P arty , 159-60. 367 to convene a congressional caucus Involved supposed p artisan d lv l- 51 dends In the form of the v1ce-pres1dency fo r serv ices rendered. A southern fa c tio n , headed by Sam Houston and William B. Lewis, sought to have Calhoun banished from the Jackson ranks by branding him as a c r i ti c o f the G eneral's Seminole campaign 1n F lorida. The p artisan s o f the V ice-President refused to stand 1dl.y by and watch th e ir c h ie f be ousted. The Charleston Mercury charged Into the game about June of 1827 by assertin g th a t Calhoun would be Jackson's running mate d espite any and a ll rumors to the contrary. Duff Green, one of the most avid Calhoun men, responded to Lewis' suggestion o f Clinton fo r the second o ffic e by asse rtin g th a t the N ew York governor would hurt the tic k e t more than help 1 t. Green In siste d th a t the Jackson cause would b est be promoted by a con certed movement to nominate the C arolinian 1n conjunction with the Hero. To th a t end, he had w ritten to party leaders 1n various s ta te s , urging them to lay the groundwork to promote the Vice- P re sid e n t's re -e le c tio n . Having heard th a t C lin to n 's support of Jackson was dependent on being named fo r the second o ffic e , Green was n a tu ra lly concerned about the Governor's course of actio n . In f a c t, he vowed to attack the Empire s ta te lead er 1f any attem pt was made by Clinton to displace Calhoun. Green wrote the N ew Yorker asking his In ten tio n s on the v ice-p resid en tial Issu e, but no quick reply was received, thus suggesting to the e d ito r th a t the Governor 51 Van Buren to Jackson (copy), September 9, 1827, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library of Congress. Albany Argus, September 19, 1827, p. 2; September 27, 1827, p. 2. 368 was In terested In the job. This prospect plus more ruir.rs th a t some Jackson men were working In behalf of Clinton brought the Telegraph Into open w arfare against the p o ten tial pretender to the vice- p resid en tial ch air. Though 1t Is unclear whether Clinton him self serio u sly desired or sought the nomination to run with Old Hickory, G reen's movement helped to turn the tid e of opinion toward Calhoun; local meetings often avoided the question e n tire ly to await the more a u th o rita tiv e nomination which would come from s ta te conventions. Most gatherings which did name a running mate for Jackson, however, 52 declared th e ir support fo r the V ice-President. O n the other fro n t, the adm inistration forces began to discuss the v ice-p resid en tial question during la te 1826. Henr*y Clay seemed to be favored by many leaders 1n the p arty , but he was ra th e r cool to the Idea. In the early months of 1827, he received encouragement from various notables to the e ffe c t th a t he would be th e ir best candidate, while others were w illin g to accept 52 Green to Lewis, September 2, 1827; Green to R. M . Johnson, September 8, 1827; Green to William T. Barry, September 8, 1827; Green to Bogardus, September 9, 1827; Green to Samuel Swartwout, October 9, 16, 1827; Green to John S. Barbour, October 8, 1827, Duff Green Letterbook, Library o f Congress. National In te llig e n c e r, June 25, 1827, p. 3. R. M . Saunders to B a rtle tt Yancey, January 20, 1827, B a rtle tt Yancey Papers, Southern H istorical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. Telegraph, October 4, 1827, p. 3; October 8 , 1827, p. 2; October 9, 1827, p. 3. Richmond Enquirer, October 30, 1827, p. 3. During the e le ctio n of 1832, a T e tte r was p rin ted 1n the Telegraph which said some N ew Yorkers wished to run Clinton fo r V ice-President but th a t he re lu ctan tly agreed only on condition th a t Tennessee would nominate him, thereby Indicating Jackson's approval. N o Tennessee nomination was ever made, of course; I t Is doubtful 1n any case whether Clinton was ever Intensely In te re sted 1n the second spot w ith Old Hickory during the campaign o f 1828. See N iles' Weekly R eg ister, September 8, 1832, p. 27. 369 C lay's opinion against running. Clay maintained his b e lie f against seeking the second o ffic e . Thus, as the year sped by, the vice- p resid en tial Issue remained unresolved fo r the Adams p arty . The adm inistration troops were perplexed by the lack of obvious can d id ates. The form alized decision on the v1ce-pres1dent1al contenders 53 fo r both p a rtie s was not to be estab lish ed u n til 1828. As the end o f 1827 approached, the Adams party was Involved 1n considerable discussion on the question o f the P resid en t's running mate, which they f e l t was of some Importance as a p o ten tial aid o r hindrance to the tic k e t's prospects. In November, some were s t i l l attem pting to convince Clay to run, though he remained less than excited about the opportunity. H e would have given In 1f the party as a whole demanded 1 t, but the main th ru st fo r the Secretary was from a segment which was a b it unhappy with Adams and thought the Kentuckian would add su b stan tial strength to an otherw ise shaky tic k e t. J . Andrew Shulze of Pennsylvania and James Barbour o f V irginia were also recognized as p o ten tial can d id ates, though less d esirab le 1n the eyes of the pro-Clay group. Nathaniel Macon of North C arolina, John Pleasants of V irginia, Jeremiah Morrow o f Ohio, W . B. Rochester of N ew York, William H. Crawford o f Georgia, Chapman Johnson of V irginia, Senator William 53 Clay to Charles Hammond, December 23, 1826, Henry Clay Papers, Duke U niversity. Martin Van Buren to James A. Hamilton, December 20, 1826, In James A. Hamilton, The Reminiscences of James A. Hamilton (New York, 1869), 63. Joseph Kent to Clay, January 26, 1827; Charles Ham m ond to Clay, March [ ? ], 1827; John H. Pleasants to Clay* M ay 4, 1827; James Brown to Clay, July 28, 1827, Henry Clay Papers, Library o f Congress. 370 Henry Harrison o f Ohio, and even President-em eritus Monroe were 54 others discussed 1n various adm inistration c irc le s . A close Kentucky asso ciate o f the Secretary of S tate suggested th a t a V irginia candidate should be supported to give the adm inistration 55 s la te a chance In th a t s ta te and to balance the tic k e t. M any adm inistration leaders thought Clay would do well to ab stain from running fo r th e second spot—enough to ensure his wish to remain on the s id e lin e s . Harry o f the West suggested th a t the question continue unresolved u n til the convening of Congress 1n order fo r 56 the various leaders to compare notes on the Issue. Meanwhile, J . Andrew Shulze seemed to be drawing a su b stan tial amount o f support In various local meetings. H e was nominated fo r the second spot on the Adams tic k e t by local gatherings 1n Ohio, Pennsylvania, and o th e r s ta te s . There was much ta lk , however, th a t despite the growing p ro b ab ility of h is general acceptance as Adams' running mate, Shulze preferred to remain 1n the Pennsylvania governor's 54 W . B. Rochester to Clay, November 4 , 1827; P eter B. P orter to Clay, November 22, 1827; Southard to Erooke (copy), December 9, 1827; Brooke to Clay, December 27, 1827, Henry Clay Papers, Library o f Congress. Samuel L. Southard to Brooke, November 9, 1827, Samuel L. Southard Papers, Princeton U niversity. Charles Francis Adams, e d ., Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Comprising Portions o f His Diary, from 1795 to 1848 (12 v o ls .,"W IladelpH a, 1874~-T879), VII, 348, ^351.------ Niles'WeeETy R eg ister, December 22, 1827, p. 3. 55 John J . C rittenden to Clay, November 15, 1827, John J . C rittenden Papers, Duke U niversity. 56 Clay to Francis T. Brooke (copy), November 24, 1827, Thomas J . Clay C o llectio n , Library o f Congress. c h a i r .^ The Philadelphia Democratic Press Indicated th a t Shulze would refuse the nomination and noted th a t geographical balance fo r the tic k e t would be more e ffe c tiv e ly Implemented 1f a western or southern man were chosen; they suggested Pleasants of V irginia as the best C O o f the p o ten tial contenders. Senator H arrison, a fru stra te d would- be nominee fo r the second o ffic e on the adm inistration tic k e t, had heard, by c o n tra st, th a t the Keystone s ta te governor had agreed to en ter the c o n test, though he personally doubted the v a lid ity of the opinion. Harrison largely blamed Clay fo r fa llin g to obtain meaningful support fo r the vice-presidency, In sistin g th a t the Kentuckian wished to avoid the elevation o f a fellow w esterner fo r 59 fe a r th a t 1t might In ju re his own prospects fo r the White House. Adams him self was re tic e n t to become Involved 1n the controversy but did In d icate he preferred th a t no advances be made to Macon o r Crawford. The President acknowledged, however, th a t he would accept whomever the party 1n general wished to ru n .6* * A Washington correspondent wrote the N ew York Commercial A dvertiser th a t a f te r Congress was session a meeting con sistin g of various 57 National In te llig e n c e r, December 10, 1827, p. 3; December 13, 1827, p .~ £ Albany Argus, November 24, 1827, p. 2. N iles' Weekly R eg ister, November 2 4 ,1 8 2 7 , p. 196. 58 Democratic P ress, 1n the In te llig e n c e r, December 14, 1827, p. 3. 59 Harrison to William Henry H arrison, J r . , December 4, 1827; January 16, 1828, William Henry Harrison Papers, LMbrary o f Congress. 60C. F. Adams, Memoirs o f John Quincy Adams, VII, 352, 374-75. adm inistration leaders had been held In early December and had decided th a t Pleasants should be nominated 1n the several s ta te s . The Telegraph rep rin ted the l e t t e r , denouncing th is alleged gathering as too sim ilar to a congressional caucus and hence as an odious proceeding.61 Whether the meeting was even held 1s not e n tire ly c e rta in , but such a conclave appears p lau sib le 1n view of the plan to consult party congressmen and the decidedly favorable opinion toward Pleasants held by a number o f Adams p arty notables. In view o f Shulze's evident p o p u larity , however, the party leadership f e l t they were obliged to give him f i r s t chance and accordingly wrote him with the o ffe r. Clay, who exercised much of the real — as contrasted with Adams' t i t u l a r —Influence 1n the p arty , personally favored Pleasants and was doubtless pleased along with others when the Pennsylvania governor declined as expected. There was s t i l l considerable e ffo rt to promote Crawford by a southern segment of the party led by Congressman Lewis Williams o f North C arolina, but the President was esp ecially averse to the Georgian. Though hoping a t one time to see his fa v o rite fu lly In the v1ce-pres1dent1al contest Independent o f e ith e r o f the p resid en tial hopefuls because o f a nomination by the Georgia le g is la tu re —which was made by th a t s ta te 's lower house on December 19—Williams was fin a lly persuaded to drop his plan when told th a t Crawford had w ritten le tte r s against the 61Telegraph, December 14, 1827, p. e. 373 adm inistration and 1n favor o f Old Hickory.62 As these p o ten tial running mates f e ll from contention, general opinion n atu rally seemed to turn toward Pleasants as the lik e ly nominee. John T yler, a fellow V irginian, thought such a prospect to be Incongruous with the p rin c ip les o f the adm inistration: "What possible a ffin ity can e x is t between Ja s. [s ic ] Pleasants and J . Q. C O Adams. As soon could I have expected a union between o il and w ater. J T y ler's p la in tiv e objection was prophetic. Largely because o f his su b stan tial disagreement w ith Adams on the t a r i f f and Internal Im provements, Pleasants declined to jo in the tic k e t.64 The party fin a lly —almost 1n desperation—turned to Richard Rush o f Pennsylvania, Secretary of the Treasury, who had received l i t t l e consideration fo r the seemingly unwanted ro le u n til the la s t minute. In fa c t, the agreement on Rush was somewhat unclear to c e rta in segments of the p arty , and there was some fe a r th a t 1t would be d if f ic u lt to co-ordinate the choice, because the o ffic ia l nomination was to come from s ta te conventions, esp ecially those 1n Pennsylvania, C O Williams to B a rtle tt Yancey, December 11, 1827, B a rtle tt Yancey Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North C arolina. C. F. Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, VII, 378, 380-82, 388, 390. go John Tyler to Henry C u rtis, December 16, 1827, John Tyler Papers, Library o f Congress. 64 National In te llig e n c e r, November 24, 1827, p. 3; December 31, 1827, p . T Francis Brooke to Clay, December 27, 1827; James Barbour to James Mercer and Francis Brooke, January 2, 1828; Williams to David C a ll, January 6 , 1828, Henry Clay Papers, Library of Congress. 374 65 V irginia, Kentucky and Ohio. The Jackson party would likew ise name I ts fin a l choice fo r V ice-President 1n s ta te conventions; though C linton, Crawford, and even Van Buren and Macon were s t i l l discussed 66 In some c ir c le s , Calhoun was the d e fin ite fa v o rite . Reference has already been made to a v a riety of nominations by local meetings and s ta te le g is la tu re s , but the s ta te nominating convention emerged Into the sp o tlig h t In th is campaign and can be considered th e most s ig n ific a n t form of s p e c ific a lly naming the o ffic ia l nominees fo r the two highest o ffic e s . A m ajority of s ta te s had such conventions, and they adopted reasonably uniform pro cedures 1n working toward e s se n tia lly the same g oals. They were used not only fo r making p re sid en tial nominations but also to name s ta te candidates, to s e le c t a central committee and sometimes local committees, to prepare an address, to choose a tic k e t of e le c to rs , and to perform various other functions germane to party organization and operation a t v irtu a lly a ll le v e ls. The convention generally elected a chairman and a secretary to supervise the course o f the meeting; much o f the actual work o f the conclave was 67 completed by committees and r a tif ie d by a vote of the e n tire body. 65 C. F. Adams, Memoirs o f John Quincy Adams, V II, 398. Brooke to Clay, December 27, 1827; James Barbour to Mercer and Brooke, January 2, 1828, Henry Clay Papers, Library of Congress. 66 Crawford to V.h Buren, December 21, 1827, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library of Congress. ------- to Duff Green, November 5, 1827, Duff Green Papers, Library o f Congress. S ilas Wright to Azarlah C. Flagg, December 13, 20, 1827, Azarlah C. Flagg Papers, N ew York Public Library. 6^James Staton Chase, "Jacksonian Democracy and the Rise o f the Nominating Convention," M1d-Amer1ca: A n H isto rical Review, X L V The f i r s t such Jackson convocation fo r the 1828 contest appears to have been held In Maryland In M ay of 1827. Along the lin e suggested by a local meeting 1n Baltimore about two months p rio r, twelve delegates were chosen from each county (six fo r Baltimore) by public meetings. V1rg1l Maxcy, a confidant of Vice- President Calhoun, was Instrumental 1n arranging fo r the state-w ide gathering. As expected, the delegates passed reso lu tio n s supporting the Hero and denouncing the Massachusetts P u ritan . The convention also appointed a central committee headed by Roger B. Taney, which 1n turn selected a central committee of correspondence. The National In te llig e n c e r reported th a t an attem pt sponsored by Maxcy to name Calhoun 1n the convention's published address as Jackson's running mate was defeated. Maxcy subsequently denied, however, th a t any e f fo r t had been made to asso ciate the C arolinian with Old Hickory on the tic k e t. A la te r rep o rt asserted th a t th ere had Indeed been an abortive attem pt to secure an endorsement of Calhoun. Whatever the p a rtic u la rs , the Maryland conclave took no stand on the Issue of the G eneral's running mate, Illu s tra tin g the flu id sta tu s o f th a t q u estio n .68 (October, 1963), 229-49. See also Ren1n1, The E lection o f Andrew Jackson, 90-92. 68Maxcy to Calhoun, April 9, 1829, John C. Calhoun Papers, Clemson U niversity. National In te llig e n c e r, April 30, 1827, p. 3; M ay 25, 1827, p. 3; M ay 31, 1827, p. 3; June 1, 1827, p. 2; June 4, 1827, p. 3; June 7, 1827, pp. 2-3. Richmond E nquirer, June 5, 1827, p. 3; June 12, 1827, p. 2. Mark H. H aller, ''The Rise o f the Jackson Party In Maryland, 1820-1829," Journal o f Southern H istory. XXXVIII (August, 1962), 317-19. 376 The Jackson p arty entered electio n year with plans fo r a number of s ta te conventions which would nominate a p resid en tial candidate—guess who—an e le c to ra l tic k e t, and even more Im portant, a p o litic a l aide-de-camp to run with the General. The gatherings were generally scheduled on or about January 8, 1828, the anniversary o f Old H ickory's memorable triumph over the B ritish a t N ew O rleans. Not unlike O rw ell's anim als, some of the conventions were more equal than o th ers. One o f the most equal 1n terms o f Influence throughout the party was the gathering 1n Pennsylvania. In 1827, a caucus o f Republicans 1n the s ta te le g isla tu re Issued a request fo r th e ir c o n stitu en ts to meet 1n each county to choose delegates to a s ta te convention a t Harrisburg on January 8. The local con ventions heeded the summons, named rep resen tativ es, and sometimes recomnended a v1ce-pres1dent1al hopeful to the forthcoming s ta te wide conclave; the meeting 1n Pittsburgh during October, fo r example, suggested th a t Calhoun be selected a t H arrisburg. More than 130 delegates representing a ll the counties 1n Pennsylvania began th e ir a c tiv itie s on the prescribed day. During the course o f the convention, George M . Dallas proposed a preamble and reso lu tio n s nominating a Jackson-Calhoun tic k e t, and his motion was unanimously c a rrie d . The group also named an ele c to ra l tic k e t, made appropriate committee appointments, and Issued an address to go Richmond Enquirer, October 30, 1827, p. 3. Telegraph, February 19. 1828, p. 3. Duff Green to Bonsai, December 14, 1827; Green to Presley Edwards, December 18, 1827; Green to E lijah Hayward, [December 1827?]; Green to Ross W ilkins, [December 1827?], Duff Green Letterbook, Library o f Congress. 377 the people.70 The nomination of the V ice-President sustained Duff Green's p rediction 1n the Telegraph and 1n numerous m issives th at the C arolinian would be put on the tic k e t and helped su b sta n tia lly to fin a liz e the Jackson s la te elsewhere. One sig n ific a n t meeting to be Influenced by the re su lts 1n Harrisburg was the Jackson convention fo r V irginia. According to plan, a meeting attended by 142 s ta te le g isla to rs favorable to the Hero met In caucus In Richmond about mid-December o f 1827. The p a rtic ip a n ts decided, however, to postpone actio n , but the date of the new gathering was delineated only a f te r considerable debate. One wanted to w ait to hear about the choice fo r V ice-President made a t Harrisburg In order th a t he might support the same candidate. Another wished to w ait longer 1n order to receive word from Illin o is and Ohio on the same Issue. Some, however, wanted to make th e ir own selectio n o f the second h a lf of the tic k e t without regard fo r the decision of o th er s ta te s . January 14 was fin a lly s e t a f te r a proposal providing fo r January 22 was defeated; the decision was based In p a rt on the d esire to have the conclave reasonably soon a f te r the V irginia convention o f adm inistration fo rces, which had been scheduled—through some s o rt of reverse psychology—fo r January 70R1chmond Enquirer, January 12, 1828, p. 3; January 15, 1828, p. 3. N iles' Weekly R eg ister, January 19, 1828, pp. 333-34. National In te llig e n c e r, January 11, 1828, p. 3; January 14, 1828, p. 4. ^ Telegraph, January 10, 1828, p. 3; January 17, 1828, p. 3. A lbert G a lla tin , J r . , to James Nicholson, January 1, 1828, A lbert G allatin Papers, New-York H isto rical Society. Green to E lijah Hayward, [December 1827?]; Green to Ross W ilkins, [December 1827?], Duff Green Letterbook, Library o f Congress. 378 8. D istric ts represented by those unfriendly to the General were allowed to appoint delegates to meet with the Jackson le g isla tiv e caucus, creating a mixed convention o f le g is la to rs and d e le g ate s.72 O n January 14, about 170 members of the le g is la tiv e and 23 spec ia lly elected delegates convened to make th e ir nomination; approximate ly 96 o f 105 counties were represented. A reso lu tio n naming Jackson fo r the f i r s t o ffic e passed unanimously, but th ere was some contro versy, as expected, regarding the course to take about the second o ffic e . A motion to avoid the v ice-p resid en tial question was defeated, while a proposal to nominate Calhoun was amended to require a vote fo r the candidates. In the ta l l y , the V ice-President, aided by the p o sitiv e news from H arrisburg, e a s ily won with 162 votes compared to 20 fo r Nathaniel Macon, 3 fo r William H. Crawford, 1 fo r L ittle to n W . Tazewell, 1 fo r John T yler, and 1 fo r D e W1tt Clinton; Calhoun was th erefo re nominated by the convention. During the course of th e ir three-day session the gathering also appointed a Jackson e le c to ra l s la te and made committee appointments. Another major n ail had been driven to secure Calhoun's po sitio n on the party t ic k e t.73 72R1chmond Enquirer, December 15, 1827, pp. 2-3. Albany Argus, December 21, 1827, p. 2. National In te llig e n c e r, December 18, 1827, p. 3. N iles' Weekly R eg ister, December 29, 1827, p. 277. 73 Richmond Enquirer, January 15, 1828, p. 3; January 17, 1828, p. 3. National In te llig e n c e r, January 18, 1828, p. 3; January 21, 1828. N iles' Weekly R eg ister, January 19, 1828, p. 334; January 26, 1828, p. 357. Telegraph, January 17, 1828, p. 3. George W . Crump to L ittle to n W . Tazewell . January [14], 15, 1828, Tazewell Family Papers, V irginia S tate Library. Thomas R itchie to William C. Rives, January, 1828, William C. Rives Papers, Library o f Congress. There were s lig h t—In fa c t, In sig n ific a n t—discrepancies between an e a r lie r and a la te r rep o rt on the attendance and vote to ta ls . The early re p o rt, Some sU g h tly sm aller n a ils had already been put In place elsew here. In Ohio, a convention o f 102 delegates from 52 counties met a t Columbus on January 8, unanimously adopting resolutions and an address which nominated a Jackson-Calhoun tic k e t. The Jackson s ta te convention 1n Frankfort, Kentucky, composed of 203 delegates from 59 counties, gathered on the same day to add th e ir voices to the ris in g chorus fo r Old Hickory and the C arolinian. Representatives from a ll the counties 1n N ew Jersey also convened a t Trenton on January 8 and added a fu rth e r vote of confidence to what was be coming the standard tic k e t. As was the general p ra c tic e , they appointed an e le c to ra l s la te , provided fo r an address, and appointed various committees. Sim ilar conventions were held during the same period In South and North C arolina, and the re s u lts were the same. In mid-January, a s ta te convention a t N ew O rleans, having rehearsed 1 t 1n mid-December, gave b irth not to the blues but to the Louisiana ren d itio n of the Jackson-Calhoun score. Reports on the Indiana version o f the same kind are c o n flic tin g : the Telegraph o f January 30 Indicated th a t the meeting had taken no sp e c ific stand on the v ice-p resid en tial question, but had appointed a committee to advise the e le c to rs o f the candidate chosen by the party elsewhere, while N iles' R egister o f February 9 said th a t the Carolinian had been chosen. There was l i t t l e p rac tic al difference whatever the case, fo r the mass of the party adonted the Jackson-Calhoun banner with fo r example, recorded no votes fo r Clinton compared to the one b a llo t Indicated In a la te r account. 380 some enthusiasm. In the words o f Duff Green, "Jackson and Calhoun are the Republican candidates and must be supported as such." Additional state-w ide conclaves la te r 1n the year r a tif ie d the 74 decision o f these conventions held during January. N ew York was one of the s ta te s 1n which the Jackson forces held no s ta te convention. Martin Van Buren, the leader of the G eneral's troops In the Empire s ta te , wielded much control through h is Regency forces In the le g isla tu re and decided to c a ll a caucus o f I ts Jackson members to add th e ir nomination to the 11st. Not a ll his colleagues agreed with th is method, however. William L. Marcy wrote to say th a t such a proceeding would be In consistent w ith the le g is la tu r e 's d eclaration during the campaign of 1824 which spoke ag ain st s ta te nominations. But Van Buren, the pragm atist, f e l t no p a rtic u la r need fo r consistency, d espite h is agency In e f- 75 fectln g the reso lu tio n to which Marcy re fe rre d . The Jackson caucus 74 Telegraph, January 17, 1828, p. 3; January 30, 1828, p. 2; February 6 , 1828, p. 3. Richmond Enquirer, January 26, 1818, p. 3; February 14, 1828, p. 3. N iles' Weekly R eg ister, January 19, 1828, p. 334; January 26, 1828, pp. 356-57; February 9, 1828, p. 388. Calhoun to James E. Calhoun, January 23, 1828, In J . Franklin Jameson, e d ., Correspondence o f John C. Calhoun (vol. I I , Annual Report o f the American H isto rical A ssociation, Washington, D. C., 1900), 259. Green to In g a lls, January 19, 1828; Russell Ja rv is to A. Ware, February 22, 1828; Green to -------, February 23, 1828, Duff Green Letterbook, Library o f Congress. Rumors 1n February th a t a c o a litio n o f Crawford men 1n the South with some northern factions was developing with the goal o f seeking to defeat Calhoun by running Van Buren caused no major rip p les on the p o litic a l w aters. 75 Van Buren to Benjamin F. B u tler, January 13, 1828; Marcy to Van Buren, January 29, 1828, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library of Congress. Van Buren to William H. Crawford, February 15, 1828, William H. Crawford Papers, Library of Congress. 381 was thus convened on January 31 o f electio n year with 110 members 1n attendance. In sistin g th a t unified e ffo rt among the G eneral's p arty was e s s e n tia l, the group nominated th e ir fa v o rite , emphasizing th a t they took the step because no national nomination had been made. To prevent unnecessary f ric tio n with C llntonlans and fearin g the p o s s ib ility th a t naming Calhoun on the tic k e t might In c ite Clinton to launch his own candidacy for the second o ffic e , the caucus took no action on the v ice-p resid en tial question. Van Buren c le a rly planned fo r the s ta t e 's e lecto ral votes to be c a st fo r the C arolinian, how- 76 ev er. The Adams party held s ta te conventions which corresponded ra th e r closely 1n time and nature to the Jacksonlans' e f fo r ts . The f i r s t such convention--! 1ke th a t of the opposition—was In Maryland. The elected delegates met In Baltimore beginning July 23, 1827; the assembled rep resen tativ es passed reso lu tio n s nominating the President fo r re -e lec tio n and downgrading Old H ickory's preten sio n s. The conclave also provided fo r an address to the s ta te and handled additional Items o f business germane to the Adams e f f o r t. I llu s tra tiv e o f the flu id sta tu s o f the p a rty 's v1ce-pres1dent1al s itu a tio n , no nomination was made for th is o f f i c e . ^ B y the time the most sig n ific a n t s ta te conventions were ready to convene, however, various top level party lead ers, as already ^ Telegraph, February 5, 1828, p. 3. National In te llig e n c e r, February S, 1828, p. 3; February 11, 1828, p. 3. ^R o b ert H. GoIdsborough to Henry Clay, August 9, 1827, Henry Clay Papers, Library of Congress. National In te llig e n c e r, July 25. 1827, p. 3; July 26, 1827, p. 31 Richmond Enquirer, “ July 31, 1827, p. 3. noted, had waded—and muddled—through a r a f t o f p o ten tial con tenders, fin a lly concluding toward the end of December to support Richard Rush of Pennsylvania. The various s ta te conventions were s e t to pipe the tune which came from the lip s o f the Washington notables. The H arrisburg convention was one o f the most In flu e n tia l o f these convocations. A to ta l o f about 110 elected delegates from 43 of Pennsylvania's 51 counties began th e ir meeting on January 4. Though re a liz in g he would d eclin e, a committee o f the con vention wrote Governor Shulze to ask him to accept th e ir nomination as V ice-President on the Adams s la te or to serve a t le a s t as the ch ief of the s ta te tic k e t of e le c to rs. Shulze declined not only the f i r s t request but also the second. The delegates proceeded to perform according to expectations: reso lu tio n s were passed 7ft which nominated Adams and Rush, and an e le c to ra l tic k e t was named. Unlike Calhoun, Secretary of the Treasury Rush had not been an activ e candidate fo r his p a rty 's choice fo r the second o ffic e . A l i t t l e unsure about how to respond, the Secretary consulted the P resid en t, who remarked th a t since 1t had been recen tly decided to depart from the e a r lie r plan to name a southern running mate, he was pleased with the choice, hoping th a t 1t would be widely supported. With Adams' vote o f confidence, Rush decided to accede to the nomination. The Harrisburg meeting, acting according to the 78 National In te llig e n c e r, January 7, 1828, p. 3; January 8, 1828, p . T N iles' Weekly R eg ister, November 24, 1827, p. 196; January 12, 1828, p. 316; January 19, 1828, p. 332. Henry Clay to Francis Brooke (copy), December 6, 1827, Thomas J . Clay Col le c tio n , Library of Congress. 383 decision o f the Washington leadership, s e t the tone fo r th e sub sequent s ta te conventions.^9 V irginia was less than f e r t i l e so il fo r the n a tio n a lis tic seeds which Adams' a ttitu d e s on the t a r i f f and Internal Improve ments generally planted. Prospects were dim, Indeed, and l i t t l e su b stan tial e f fo r t toward the P resid en t's re -e le c tio n was employed u n til la te summer o f 1827. During la te August and September, such leaders as Francis Brooke and John H. P leasan ts, e d ito r o f the Richmond C onstitutional Whig, publicized th e Idea of holding a s ta te convention opposed to Jackson's e le c tio n . The meeting was designed to counteract the Influence of the usual V irginia le g is la tiv e caucus, which fo r the electio n of 1828 would be predictably strong fo r the cause of the General. W hen asked by Brooke about the a d v isa b ility o f the proposed convention, Henry Clay responded 80 a ffirm a tiv e ly . Local meetings were called fo r September through December to appoint delegates to the state-w ide convocation, and the blessing of Harry of the West no doubt added zest to the adm inistration su p p o rters' e ffo r ts . In the pragmatic tra d itio n of American p o litic s , the Adams group began to denounce the le g is la tiv e caucus—which they knew would go ag ain st them—as "unauthorized d ic ta tio n " which deprived the people of th e ir rig h ts . The a n tl- 79 C. F. Adams, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, V II, 398, 400. on Clay to Brooke, September 24, 1827, In Calvin Colton, e d ., The Works o f Henry Clay (10 v o ls ., N ew York, 1904), IV, 179. Pleasants to Joseph C. C abell, October 6, 1827, Cabell Family Papers, U niversity o f V irginia. Jackson convention, by c o n tra st, would allow the voters an opportunity to p a rtic ip a te 1n the ea rly stages of the p o litic a l process by choosing delegates to the s ta te conclave. Various of the local gatherings to choose rep resen tativ es chimed 1n with th e ir c ritic ism s o f the le g is la tiv e caucus. Some of these meetings passed reso lu tio n s favoring Adams' re -e le c tio n , while others thought I t more prudent merely to denounce Old Hickory—apropos of the s ta te anti-Jackson convention fo r which they were selectin g rep resen tativ es. Many adm inistration V irginians, 1n f a c t, were h e sita n t to make declarations 1n favor o f the P resid en t, whom they considered simply to be the le sse r o f e v ils , while o th e rs, 1n Rooseveltlan s ty le , no 81 doubt wished to walk s o ftly with th e ir Adams s tic k . The various local gatherings had decided to den the 11on with his own beard, so to speak, by s e ttin g the s ta rtin g date fo r the 82 anti-Jackson convention fo r January 8—N ew Orleans day—1n Richmond. About 200 delegates convened on the appointed day; Francis Brooke and John H. P leasan ts, two of the In itia to r s of the meeting, were selected as president and se cre ta ry , resp ectiv ely . Despite rumors from various sources th a t D e W1tt Clinton would be nominated fo r 81 National In te llig e n c e r, September 26, 1827, p. 3; October 20, 1827, p. 2; NovemberZl, 1827, p. 3. N iles' Weekly R eg ister, November 17, 1827, pp. 180, 187. R1chmond~fcnqu1rer, September 18, 1827, p. 3; September 25, 1827, p. 3; October 2, 1827, p. 3; October 5, 1827, pp. 2-3; October 16, 1827, p. 3; October 19, 1827, p. 2; October 26, 1828, p. 3; November 13, 1827, pp. 1-2. 82 Daniel Graham to William Polk (ty p e scrip t) December 27, 1827, William Polk Papers, North Carolina Department o f Archives and H istory. Telegraph, December 6 , 1827, p. 3. N iles' Weekly R eg ister, December 1, 1827, p. 212. James Barbour to James Mercer and Francis Brooke, January 2, 1828, Henry Clay Papers, Library o f Congress. 385 President and urging from others th a t—of a ll people—John Marshall be supported, the group during th e ir five-day conclave nominated the same tic k e t as th a t named 1n H arrisburg: Adams and Rush. One re so lu tio n , 1n fa c t, sp e c ific a lly endorsed the Pennsylvania conven tio n 's nomination fo r V ice-President. In an apparent attem pt to a ttr a c t broader public support, the delegates a t Richmond even designated a tic k e t o f ele cto rs headed by none o ther than the two liv in g men who q u a lifie d fo r the t i t l e of P resident-em eritus: James Madison and James Monroe. These men declined the honor of leading the tic k e t fo r the character who was soon to jo in th e ir se le c t c irc le by becoming P re sld e n t-re je c t. The convention also appointed—as was ty p ic a l—a cen tral committee o f correspondence as well as other appropriate committees. "The Address of the V irginia Anti-Jackson Convention" was another production of the m ettlng; the nomenclature had remained the same regardless of th e ir endorsement o f Adams. The V irginia segment of the p a rty , however, had joined the bandwagon fo r what became the g enerally QO accepted tic k e t of a d m in istratio n .00 83John Y. Mason to James H. Rochelle, January 11, 1828, James H. Rochelle Papers, Duke U niversity. National In te llig e n c e r, January 12, 1828, p. 2; January 15, 1828, p. 3; January 17, 1828, p. 2. Henry Clpy to P eter B. P o rter, January 14, 1828, P eter B. P orter Papers, Buffalo and Erie County H istorical Society. Richmond Enquirer, January 8 , 1828, p. 2; January 10, 1828, p. 3; January 12, 1828, p. 3. H. Meade to John Rutherfoord, January 18, 1828, John Rutherfoord Papers, Duke U niversity. James Monroe to John McLean, January 30, 1828, James Monroe Papers, Library o f Congress. C linton, published a le tte r before mid-December which reaffirm ed his support fo r Jackson and his absolute unwillingness to be made a candidate against the General. Telegraph, December 14, 1827, p. 3. The Adams conventions In several o f the sm aller s ta te s had met 1n la te 1827. In Kentucky, the meeting o f nearly 300 lo c a lly selected delegates convened on December 17 but made no nomination fo r V ice-President because the question was yet to be s e ttle d by notables a t th e Federal c a o lta l. In fa c t, leaders In Henry Clay's home s ta te were acting on h is sp e c ific d ire ctio n th a t th e ir con vention should make no decision because the question had not y et been s e ttle d . One delegate did propose the nomination o f William H. Crawford f o r the second o ffic e but was persuaded to withdraw h is motion. The Adams convention In Ohio came to g eth er on December 28 with 220 members selected by local gatherings representing 66 o f the s ta t e 's 73 counties. The meeting adopted reso lu tio n s favor able to the P re sid e n t's re -e le c tio n , prepared an address, and chose a tic k e t of e le c to rs . Like th e ir neighboring s ta te to the south, the adm inistration convocation 1n Ohio took no o ffic ia l position on the v1ce-pres1dent1al Issu e, deciding to w ait fo r a resolution of th a t question among the national leaders and In flu e n tia l s ta te conventions.84 Despite Senator William Henry H arrison's continuing attem pt to g e t nominated fo r the vice-presidency as a western con tender 1n opposition to th e candidacy of the eastern-based Treasury S ecretary, another meeting o f the Ohio convention was held 1n early February of e lec tio n y ear, and the delegates contributed th e ir sanction to the p a rty 's choice by nominating Rush. The la s t 84 C. Todd to Clay, January 16, 1828, Henry Clay Papers, Library o f Congress. Richmond Enquirer, January 5, 1828, p. 3; January 10, 1828, p. 2. N iles' Weekly R eg ister, January 12, 1828, p. 316. 387 minute decision fo r Rush by the p a rty 's leaders In Washington and the subsequent Implementation of the choice by the In flu e n tia l Pennsylvania and V irginia conventions succeeded 1n molding the r e s t o f the adm inistration fo llo w ers.85 In North Carolina, an anti-Jackson—ra th e r than pro-Adams— movement had developed during the fa ll o f 1827 1n a manner sim ilar to the adm inistration e ffo rts 1n V irginia. O n December 20, about 40 delegates selected by local meetings plus approximately 15 members of the s ta te le g isla tu re gathered a t Raleigh to form a mixed convention. A s noted previously, Lewis William o f North Carolina had been urging Crawford as Adams' running mate, and various delegates sought to press th is p lan , which Iro n ic a lly was being abandoned about the same time by Williams 1n Washington. But a strong p ro te st by the In flu e n tia l William Gaston prevented the enactment o f a Crawford nomination. Gaston In siste d th a t the convention had not met with a view of naming a candidate fo r the second o ffic e and th a t they should follow the decision made by the anti-Jackson forces a t the gathering 1n Richmond. The Raleigh meeting thus s a tis fie d themselves by choosing an Adams tic k e t of e le c to rs w ithout taking action on who should be linked with the 85Nat1ona1 In te llig e n c e r, Aorll 5, 1828, p. 3. Harrison to William Henry H arrison, J r . , ' January 16, 18, 20, 1828; Joslah S. Johnston to H arrison, January 29, 1828, William Henry Harrison Papers, Library o f Congress. 388 P resident on the adm inistration banner.86 L ater In the campaign the p a rty 's consensus choice o f Rush was adopted In North Carolina as w ell. Adm inistration conventions o f some type also nominated an Adams s la te of electo rs 1n Louisiana during la te 1827 and 1n M ississippi during January o f 1828.8^ The various s ta te meetings o f both p a rtie s held a f te r the bellw ether conventions In Pennsylvania and V irginia merely followed the p rescrip tio n s Issued by the p o litic a l physicians a t Harrisburg and Richmond. In la te January, an adm inistration convocation 1n Maine f e ll Into lin e , while a New Jersey version did the same In OO the l a t t e r p a rt of February. A more Important Adams convention was held 1n N ew York, and the 105 lo c a lly chosen delegates who gathered 1n Albany during June n a tu rally accepted the standard Adams-Rush tic k e t. This adm inistration e f fo r t was prim arily designed, however, to Infuse some lif e Into th e ir p artisan troops and to counteract, I f p o ssib le, the e ffe c ts o f the Jacksonian le g is la tiv e caucus which had placed the G eneral's name 1n nomination a t the la s t of ^Edward E. Graham to J . Bryan, January 2, 1828, William Gaston Papers, Southern H istorical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. Williams to David C all, January 6 , 1828, Henry Clay Papers, Library o f Congress. National In te llig e n c e r, November 24, 1827, p. 2; December 28, 1827, p. 3; January 8, 1828, p. 3. Richmond Enquirer, December 28, 1827, p. 3; January 8, 1828, p. 2. N iles' Weekly R egister. December 8, 1827, p. 226; December 29, 1827, p. 277. Sa l l e s ' Weekly R eg ister. December 29, 1827, p. 277; March 8, 1828, p. 25. William S. Hofftnan, Andrew Jackson and North Carolina P o litic s (Chapel H ill, 1958), 18. ^ N atio n al In te llig e n c e r. January 31, 1828, p. 3; February 4, 1828, p .*71 N iles' Weekly R eg ister, February 2, 1828, p. 374; March 8, 1828, p. 25. 89 January. One supporter o f the P resident was o p tim istic about th e ir chances to overcome the caucus Influence, In sistin g th a t the "l i t t l e Shepherd [Van Buren] w ill fin d his p o litic a l lik e his fleecy trib e 90 rushing through the breaches o f h is crumbling enclosure." Massa c h u se tts, the P resid en t's home s ta te , fa ile d to hold a s ta te convention to nominate him fo r re -e le c tio n ; In March, however, a larg e le g is la tiv e caucus unanimously approved the Adams-Rush tic k e t. O n the Jackson s id e , there were also la te r s ta te conventions—1n Connecticut and N ew Hampshire, fo r example—o f one d escrip tio n or another. A v ariety o f local meetings which r a tif ie d the actions of th e ir re spective state-w ide convocations were held a t many times and places 91 throughout much of the nation during the remainder o f the campaign. Each sid e was—fo r obvious p artisan advantage—c r itic a l of some o f the nominating procedures o f the o th er. Adams p arty prop ag an d ists, fo r Instance, called th e ir man the people's candidate 1n V irginia and denounced the General as the caucus nominee—"King Caucus on his throne!"—a contender chosen by unrepresentative means. The Jackson polem icists responded by accusing the delegates to the 89 P eter B. P orter to Clay, March 26, June 12, 1828, Henry Clay Papers, Library of Congress. N iles' Weekly R eg ister, June 21, 1828, pp. 265-66; June 28, 1828, p. 282. 90 R. Livingston to John W . Taylor, March 21, 1828, John W . Taylor Papers, New-York H istorical Society. 91 Richmond Enquirer, March 21, 1828, p. 3; M ay 20, 1828, p. 3; June 13, 1828, p. 3; June 20, 1828, p. 3; June 24, 1828, p. 3; Ju ly 4, 1828, p. 3; July 15, 1828, p. 3; August 8 , 1828, p. 3; September 9, 1828, p. 3; September 26, 1828, p. 3. Telegraph, M ay 5, 1828, p. 3. National In te llig e n c e r. April 5, 1828, p. 3; April 8, 1828, p. 3. 390 adm inistration convention of having been chosen by an Inadequate number of people on the local level and by In sistin g th a t th e ir own mixed convention fa ith fu lly represented th e w ill o f th e ir respective 92 co n stitu en ts. S im ilar verbal b a ttle s developed elsewhere as w ell. In New York various adm inistration observers were severely c r itic a l of the le g is la tiv e caucus, larg ely fo r fe a r th a t Its Influence would b en efit the Jackson cause. In the words o f R. M . Livingston, M ay o f the adm inistration men 1t 1s to be feared w ill slin k back Into th e ir vassalage and abide the decisions of King Caucus who h ith e rto muzzled by the policy o f V[an] B[uren] 1s now made ready to Huzza fo r Old Hickory. Whether many o f the asses w ill prove [to be] mules and refuse to bray the same note 1n concert with h is Excellency must depend on fu tu re management. 93 Despite the b lu ste r from both co m ers, l i t t l e was accomplished by these oral f is tic u f f s . W hen the major s ta te conventions fo r both p a rtie s made th e ir nominations, the resp ectiv e tic k e ts were estab lish ed throughout the natio n . Such far-reaching Influence fo r the popularly appointed—a t le a s t to a degree—state-w1 de assemblies was aided by the general consensus w ithin each party on I t s p resid en tial can d id ates. Since the vice-presidency was th e only o ffic e 1n question, most people, many o f whom cared l i t t l e about the second o ffic e , found I t re la tiv e ly painless to acquiesce to the decision even I f th e ir fav o rite fo r the running m ate's post were not chosen. The p a rtie s worked to g eth er with a degree of unanimity q u ite unlike — Richmond Enquirer. December 25, 1827, p. 3; January 22, 1828, p. 3; January 31, 1828, p. 3. Telegraph, February 19, 1828, p. 3. 93 Livingston to John W . Taylor, January 31, 1828, John W . Taylor Papers, New-York H istorical Society. 391 the confused p artisan jabberwocky of the electio n of 1824. There was only one serious attem pt to rupture the Intensive e ffo rts 1n behalf o f the respective tic k e ts . William H. Crawford and company In Georgia simply were unable to swallow th e unpalatable Calhoun fo r V ice-President lozenge prepared by the ch ief Jacksonian p o li t i c a l apothecaries. Since they could scarcely vote fo r the admin is tra tio n tic k e t's second man e ith e r, Crawford and his associates trie d to su b stitu te Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina. The Georgian wrote a number o f In flu e n tia l p o litic ia n s 1n a ll but fiv e N ew England s ta te s , Including Martin Van Buren o f N ew York and Samuel Smith of Maryland, In an attem pt to secure th e ir support to switch the Jackson ele c to rs to Macon. Crawford's campaign to break Calhoun m iserably fa ile d , however, as both p a rtie s achieved ex cellen t unity ra tin g s: 1n a losing cause Adams and Rush both received 83 electo ral v o tes, while winners Jackson and Calhoun had 178 and 171 b a llo ts , resp ectiv ely . The d issen ters from the Vice- President were—you guessed I t —seven of nine Georgia elec to rs who cast th e ir votes fo r William Smith of South C arolina.94 Thus ended the Federal Era and began the Age of Jackson. If the campaign o f 1824 resu lted 1n the death of King Caucus as monarch o f national nominations, the election of 1828 caused h is b u ria l. 94Crawford to Smith, October, 1828, William H. Crawford Papers, Duke U niversity. Crawford to Van Buren, October 21, 1828, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library o f Congress. N iles' Weekly R eg ister, August 16, 1828, p. 408; February 14, 1829, p. 4 t l . Svend P etersen,' A S ta tis tic a l H istory o f the American P resid en tial Elections (New York, 1963), 20. A new system o f choosing the candidates fo r P resident and Vice- President fa ile d to emerge during the contest won by Old Hickory over his M assachusetts r iv a l, but the method which would develop to step Into the In stitu tio n a l gap was c le arly foreshadowed. The dominance o f s ta te conventions and ta lk of a national convention were obvious harbingers o f the r is e of the national system o f nominations to be Inaugurated during the next p re sid e n tia l sweep stakes. Indeed, assem blies chosen by the p o litic a lly activ e citizen s fo r the sp e c ific purpose of making nominations were fa r b e tte r su ited to the burgeoning democratic s p i r i t o f the times than the le g is la tiv e caucuses on e ith e r the s ta te or national le v e ls. In 1824, fo r Instance, six s ta te s w ith 71 votes chose elec to rs by th e ir s ta te le g is la tu re s , while 1n 1828 only two sta te s with 17 b a llo ts did so. The number o f popular votes In 1828 was more than tr ip le th a t 1n 1824, and th e national p er centage o f ad u lt white males who voted more than doubled. As more people thus became concerned about the p o litic a l process, the e sse n tia l pragmatism o f American p o litic s —not to mention the facade o f theory—lo g ic a lly led to g re a te r and more d ire c t opportunities to p a rtic ip a te In p resid en tial nom inations.95 With 95See Richard P. McCormick, "New Perspectives on Jacksonian P o litic s ," American H isto rical Review, L X V (January, I960), 288-301. McCormick argues th a t the view which In s is ts th e e le c to ra te expanded su b sta n tia lly with the a rriv a l o f Jacksonian democracy 1s In co rrect. While his cen tral and some co ro llary theses are a t le a s t p a rtia lly valid from c e rta in p ersp ectiv es, there can be no doubt th a t a g reater absolute number o f people were concerned with p resid en tial electio n s and th a t the tra n sfe r of the choice of ele c to rs from various s ta te le g isla tu re s to the ele c to ra te represented a th ru s t o f democracy which Involved more c itiz e n s 1n d ire c t p a rtic ip a tio n 1n the selectio n the congressional nominating caucus d iscred ited from a p ra c tic a l, as well as Id eo lo g ical, viewpoint, the national nominating con vention would provide a more c o n siste n t, though not necessarily much more e ffe c tiv e , system o f choosing the candidates who fought to experience the m agnlflclent misery o f the White House, to s i t a t the desk where the buck sto p s, to work 1n the heat of the executive kitchen. of the c h ie f executive. The Increased In te n sity o f In te re s t In the p resid en tial co n test Is seen 1n a l e t t e r w ritten during 1828: though In the previous several electio n s considerable apathy was encountered, "now the nation 1s too fie rc e —we can scarcely see, or meet a man, but Is able to t e l l you how many Coaches, S ervants, B illia rd tab les and d o llars Adams makes use o f In a year—The exact number of Indians —B ritish —d eserters and p ira te s Jackson has put to Death." James Heaton to John McLean, September 15, 1827, John McLean Papers, Library o f Congress. C O N C L U SIO N N O M IN A T IO N S IN R ETR O SPEC T The debates a t the C onstitutional Convention, the w ritings o f the Founding F athers, and the C onstitution I t s e l f make 1t c lea r th a t the p o litic a l party system was scarcely envisioned by those who la id the foundations of the American governmental stru c tu re . To th e ir su rp rise , however, ra th e r su b stan tial p a rtie s had been b u ilt w ithin a decade o f the Inception of the Federal government. But the ris e o f the party system brought a m ultitude o f new problems to be resolved, not the le a s t o f which concerned the question o f nominations for President and V ice-President. How, Indeed, could the newly-formed p a rtie s concentrate th e ir strength behind two sp ec ific candidates, thus avoiding a d issip atio n of p o litic a l support upon other In d iv i duals whose chances fo r victory on a national basis were si1m a t best? A fter the p resid en tial and v1ce-pres1dent1al candidates had been selected through consensus 1n the early campaigns, the solution to th is weighty problem proved to be the congressional nominating caucus, a p o litic a l In stitu tio n which fo r nearly a quarter-century dominated the se le c tio n o f asp iran ts fo r the n atio n 's two highest o ffic e s. The ra th e r unstructured s ta te o f p arty organization (which was to p e rs is t throughout the Federal Era) and the lack of speedy tran sp o rtatio n and communication would not perm it a complicated 394 395 method fo r choosing party nominees, and I t was perhaps only natural th a t the members o f Congress, who were already 1n the cap ital operating—a t le a s t to a c e rta in degree—as a group, should represent th e ir respective s ta te s 1n th is Important function. Since congres sional electio n s were sometimes decided, esp ecially la te r In the period, In terms o f the p re sid e n tia l question, the re la tio n sh ip to nominations doubtless appeared even more lo g ic a l. The caucus system, then, arose as a p ractical device to meet a p ractical need In a p ra ctic al p o litic a l arena: pragmatism thus characterized American p o litic s long before William James and John Dewey constructed a th e o retic al and system atic framework fo r the Idea. That a congressional nomination was a fla g ra n t v io latio n o f Baron de Montesquieu's p rin c ip le o f the separation of powers seemed to present no problem to the caucus p a rtic ip a n ts . Whatever might be said of th e ir acting 1n a d1 ffe re n t—and n o n -le g isla tiv e —capacity In choosing candidates 1n the caucus, the congressmen were s t i l l members of the le g is la tiv e branch. Thus, th e ir ro le 1n the selectio n of con tenders fo r the n a tio n 's top two executive o ffices In ev itab ly con troverted the separation p rin c ip le . So, a t le a s t, observed John Quincy Adams, who as Secretary o f S tate wrote 1n 1819 th a t the nominating caucus was "a p ractice which places the President 1n a s ta te of undue subserviency to the members of the le g is la tu re ." Adams' statem ent suggests th a t the caucus could p o te n tia lly have been used by Congress to ex e rt considerable Influence over a President during h is f i r s t term. The Incumbent doubtless realized he had to maintain a t le a s t a modicum of favor with his p a rty 's 396 le g isla tiv e lead ers; to have alien ated the congressmen might well have tempted them to look elsewhere fo r a p resid en tial nominee. But how much substance was th ere to th is charge o f unwarranted Influence over the ch ief executive, which Involved a possible a lte ra tio n of the power re latio n sh ip between the two branches? A ctually, 1n every Instance—even In 1812, when accusations o f undue le g is la tiv e Influence were made—Republican congressmen had v irtu a lly no a lte rn a tiv e but to name the Incumbent to carry the banner again. The F ed eralist caucus of 1800, to c ite another example, had l i t t l e choice In view of party opinion but to renominate John Adams, despite the d is s a tis factions o f the Hamiltonians; In fa c t, 1t was th is absence o f a lte r natives which caused Hamilton to agree to support Adams 1n the caucus. Thus, any p o s s ib ility of using the congressional nomination as a weapon against the President was severely circum scribed by the confines o f party and public opinion, plus a concomitant lack of feasib le choices ap art from the Incumbent. Any departure by the President from the goals of the party s u ffic ie n tly serious to re s u lt 1n his being abandoned by the caucus would no doubt have caused him to be dumped whatever the method o f nomination. While putting some r e s tr a in t on the executive, the caucus seems to have been much lik e a 105 m m . cork gun: su p e rfic ia lly Imposing but r e a lis tic a lly lim ited In power. The Republican caucus re s u lt fo r President was a foregone con clusion through the period o f Je ffe rso n 's candidacies; the same was tru e of the only F ed eralist caucus, which 1n 1800 nominated Incumbent John Adams fo r another term. The early congressional conclaves were generally more concerned, th e re fo re , with the question of the vice- 397 presidency. The absence of controversy about which man would be named as the leader o f the tic k e t resu lted 1n comparatively l i t t l e overt opposition to congressional system. In 1808, however, the Republicans were faced with the prospect of possibly having to make a p resid en tial choice In caucus between James Madison, who was Je ffe rso n 's fa v o rite , and George C linton, who had considerable support In N ew York and several o ther N ew England and middle s ta te s . The p o ten tial fin a le 1n the nomination stru g g le fa ile d to m ateria lize , though, because the forces supporting Clinton—as well as the adherents o f James Monroe, a th ird Republican contender—saw th a t th e ir chances fo r winning the caucus were hopeless. The d issid en t factions boycotted the congressional meeting 1n order to be free to oppose both the In s titu tio n and I ts nominee. This electio n marked the f i r s t su b stan tial opposition to the method of choosing the nominees by a conclave of Republican congress men. Though generally phrasing th e ir c ritic ism In th e o re tic a l terms, factional Republicans and the F ed eralists used denunciation o f the caucus as a pragmatic weapon against the regular candidate. To have free ly adnltted th a t th e ir objection to the choice was based almost e n tire ly on the p ra ctic al grounds o f d islik in g the contender and of p referrin g another would have demonstrated an obvious case of sour grapes. Then, as now, Ideology often served as a superb sh ield fo r pragmatic p o litic a l goals which can be measured not 1n terms of a b stra c t p rin cip les but In terms o f victory o r d efeat. To paraphrase the poet: "W hen th a t one g reat Scorer comes to w rite ag ain st your name, H e w rites th a t you won or lo s t, not how you played the game." 398 The F ed eralists meanwhile held th e ir own In tra-p a rty b a ttle 1n which the p u rists emerged triumphant over the pragm atists. The p a rty 's embryonic national convention In N ew York decided against supporting George C linton, turning Instead to th e ir proven—a t le a s t a t losing—tic k e t of Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina and Rufus King o f N ew York. Their record would remain p erfect as the regular nomination overwhelmingly carried th e day ag ain st the two Republican d issid en ts and the p u ris t Federal tic k e t. The nomination game In 1812 was In some respects nearly a replay o f the 1808 co n test. With Incumbent Madison looming as the obvious choice of the re g u la rs, the Republican caucus was again boycotted by the factio n al wing o f the p arty , which consisted e sse n tia lly of those acting In behalf of D e W itt C linton. A sig n ific a n t proportion o f the F ed eralists were won over to the pragmatic view, and the p a rty 's In tern al struggle was won th is time by those who preferred to support Clinton as the le sse r o f e v ils . A more fu lly attended national conclave o f F ederalists made the decision to back the N ew Yorker, though w ithout an o ffic ia l public announcement to th at e ffe c t. Both p a rtie s o f th is q u asi-co alitio n again used opposition to the caucus as a p artisan cannon 1n th e ir arsenal against Madison, the reg u lar nomination, and the V irginia dynasty. The pragm atist F ed eralist course proved more rewarding than the p u ris t e ffo rt four year p rio r: the q u asi-co alitio n lo s t to Madison by the re la tiv e ly close e le c to ra l count of 128-89. The caucus nomination continued to dominate the electio n scene, but 1 t evidenced le ss strength 1n 399 the face of the e ffe c ts o f cumulative attack s on I ts legitim acy. Again, pragmatic opposition In th e o re tic a l clothing was the watch word. The congressional caucus o f 1816 witnessed th e only authentic contest fo r the top spot th a t occurred during the years the system was u tiliz e d . The ant1-V1rg1n1a forces were present 1n g reater numbers, and thinking they had an ex cellen t chance to oust the dynasty, the d issidents decided to place th e ir hopes Inside the congressional system ra th e r than outside 1 t. Carrying the banner o f William H. Crawford In to the caucus ag ain st James Monroe, those who sought to end the V irginia succession narrowly missed th e ir goal as the Georgian received the sh o rt end of a 65-54 vote. By p a rtic ip a tin g 1n the congressional nomination, however, the Crawford adherents l e f t no room fo r meaningful opposition to the re s u lt. Despite grumbling among various fa c tio n s, the defeated ant1-V1rg1n1a p artisan s generally acquiesced to the d ecision, as did the Georgian him self. With the F ed eralists 1n no p o sitio n to make a serious challenge, success In winning the regular nomination cleared Monroe's path a ll the way to the White House. By 1820, despite a few rumblings ag ain st Monroe, th ere was l i t t l e need fo r a congressional caucus. No President had y e t been denied renomination by h is p arty , and Monroe would be no exception. W hen some Republican congressmen convened to consider naming can d id a tes, the group decided such action was Inexpedient, thereby endorsing, 1n e ffe c t, the Incumbents fo r re -e le c tio n . The caucus 400 was on the wane. The ele ctio n of 1824 would provide the fin al agonies fo r the f i r s t p resid en tial nominating system. A s the Era o f Good Feelings drew to a clo se , the bad feelings which had existed 1n abundance— d espite the su p e rfic ia l appearances o f minimal p artisan sh ip —reached a resounding crescendo In the stru g g le to succeed Monroe. Crawford, who considered him self the logical h e ir apparent, was the adm inistration fa v o rite , and I t became c le a r early In the contest th a t he would seek the role o f the regular candidate. The forces of John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, and to a le ss e r ex te n t, Henry Clay, the o ther con tenders who ran In the fin a l heat o f the 1824 p resid en tial sweepstakes, co-operated In a loose c o a litio n ag ain st the caucus. I f they could not only negate the p o sitiv e Influence of the congressional system o f nominations but also make such a proceeding a l i a b i l i ty , one a sp iran t would fade 1n the stre tc h fo r the w ire. The absence from the nomination meeting arranged by the forces of anti-caucus candidates In 1824 was d iffe re n t from the boycotts of 1808 and 1812 1n one major resp ect: composed o f the friends of several hopefuls, a m ajority refused to p a rtic ip a te In the congressional choice ra th e r than a m inority. A fter Crawford won the caucus with the votes of less than a th ird o f the Republicans In Congress, the p o litic a l cannons o f the others 1n the game, having already fire d many rounds Into the progressively crumpling system, erupted with Increased firepow er. A rticles of untold verbiage denounced the caucus as Inimical to the C o n stitu tio n , as a usurpation of the rig h ts of the 401 people, and as a contravention o f the separation of powers, to name but a few o f the lin es o f atta ck . While some o f the c r itic s were sin cerely opposed to the system on grounds of p rin c ip le , the m ajority were doing homage to the loaves and fish es of p artisan sh ip and I ts an ticip ated s p o ils. Pragmatism was again adorned with the garments of supposedly a l tr u is tic theory which proclaimed Its m otivation to be concern fo r the p u rity o f the American species of government. The unprecedented vigor and massive extent of the denunciation of King Caucus, plus the 111 health of Regent Crawford, led Inevitably to the monarch's downfall. Crawford's m iserable th ird place In the electo ral vote count provided the adverse p ractical re s u lt which combined with the plethora of concerted Ideological e ffo rts to place an Irrevocable osculation of the Grim Reaper upon the fa llin g system. I f 1n America nothing succeeds lik e success, I t 1s equally tru e th a t nothing f a lls lik e fa ilu re . The caucus was In d elib ly stamped with the Imprint both o f fa ilu re and o f the th e o retic al unpopularity which was associated with I t . The end o f an era had come. A major p o litic a l In s titu tio n , the n a tio n 's f i r s t system to name candidates fo r the two highest o ffic e s , had toppled. What would replace I t? While a caucus was mentioned by a few, I t was not a serious p ro b ab ility fo r the e lectio n of 1828. The deposed system was too unpopular to w arrant a meaningful attem pt to re sto re I ts p artisan suzerainty. As In various p rio r e le c tio n s, local meetings and s ta te le g isla tu re s or le g isla tiv e caucuses provided supplementary nominations fo r the two highest o ffic e s. But the growth of 402 democratic theory and--to some extent—p ra c tice during the several years p rio r to 1828 paved the way for the dominance of the s ta te , 1f not the n a tio n al, form o f nominating convention. A ctually, Martin Van Buren and John C. Calhoun, two a c tiv is ts 1n the Jackson e f f o r t, had talked o f holding a national convention, but the plan was Inexplicably dropped. The obvious candidacy of P resident Adams and Old Hickory to the exclusion of any o ther serious con tenders was lik e ly one of the primary reasons th a t the national meeting was never held. The s ta te nominating conventions were s u ffic ie n t to accomplish the somewhat superfluous task of naming men who were already In the race for the p resid en tial c h a ir. These conclaves were more Important 1n naming the resp ectiv e vice- p resid en tial candidates, thus helping to solve the le ss than obvious question o f the running mate fo r each s la te . While the actual decision fo r Richard Rush and Calhoun had been larg ely s e ttle d among each p a rty 's leadership not long before the c r itic a l s ta te gatherings 1n Pennsylvania and V irginia In early 1828, those meetings provided both ra tif ic a tio n and publication of the tic k e ts and helped to Influence subsequent conventions. These high level assem blies served, 1n ad d itio n , to help organize each party 1n the s ta te s where they were held. The hegemony o f the s ta te conventions In making nominations fo r the 1828 co n test and the Van Buren-Calhoun plan fo r a national convention, abortive though I t was, were harbingers o f the convention system which would be Inaugurated In the next ele c tio n and continues u n til the present as the method by which candidates are selected to run fo r the n a tio n 's top two o ffic e s. 403 In evaluating the effectiv en ess of p resid en tial nominations during the Federal Era, 1t 1s e sse n tia l to view the methods w ithin the framework provided by the circumstances of the p o litic a l environ ment. As pragmatic devices, the methods fo r naming each p a rty 's candidates were products o f the p o litic a l and lo g istic a l problems of the period. Hence, nomination by consensus was e ffe c tiv e fo r the f i r s t two e le c tio n s, because Washington entered the ring fo r p artisan f is tic u f f s only to get a shadowboxlng workout as he unanimously carried the e le c to ra l college In the face of no opposi tio n . Of equal Importance was the fa c t th a t party organization by 1792 was s t i l l In I ts In cip ien t phase and hence scarcely conducive to anything as organized as a formal caucus nomination. There were e f f o r ts , o f co-operation, however, esp ecially among the Republicans, which foreshadowed the development o f the more thoroughly co-ordinated and stru ctu red form o f nomination provided by the congressional system. While the electio n o f 1796 was fought between two contenders, John Adams and Thomas Je ffe rso n , each f u lf ille d the ro le as a c lea r choice o f th e ir respective p a rtie s —d espite Alexander Hamilton's s u rre p titio u s , but unsuccessful, attem pt to see the F ed eralist entry come In behind his own running mate. Hence, a consensus—or perhaps fo r Republicans a s o rt o f rudimentary caucus—nomination was s u ita b le . E ffo rts to create concert o f action w ithin each party were again obvious, p a rtic u la rly 1n view o f a more advanced stage of p artisan o rganization. The v ice-p resid en tial candidates—tech n ic a lly second p re sid e n tial contenders u n til the Twelfth Amendment was r a tif ie d 1n 1804—though less e a sily selected than the tic k e t 404 lead er, were chosen ra th e r e ffe c tiv e ly by consensus before 1800, with the exception o f the Republican fa ilu re to agree In 1796. The campaign o f 1800 witnessed the establishm ent of the formal caucus method, as p o litic a l organization had advanced to a degree which made such an action more e a sily a ttain e d . Though s e c re t, the two con gressional meetings fo r nominations decided on sp e c ific candidates through a vote o f the p a rtic ip a n ts. By 1804, the Republican caucus was clothed with re g u la rity as 1t convened and acted according to public n o tice. Thus had the p a rtie s become su ffic ie n tly well o r ganized to answer more convincingly the question of how they could form ally concentrate and unify th e ir campaign e f fo r ts . The p r a c ti c a b ility o f en tru stin g the task to the congressional delegations and the d iff ic u lty , from a tran sp o rtatio n and communications viewpoint, of any o ther method makes the caucus system seem ra th er lo g ic a l— p a rtic u la rly 1n view o f the use of nominating caucuses on the local level even during the la te colonial period. By the time th is f i r s t system o f national nominations had been destroyed by pragmatic oppo s itio n and the accompanying th eo retic al denunciation, tran sp o ratlo n , communication, and public p a rtic ip a tio n In the p o litic a l process had advanced su b sta n tia lly enough to perm it a more so p h istica te d , though not ra d ica lly d iffe re n t, In stitu tio n to be used. The dawn o f the Jacksonian Era provided a scenario In which nominations would be made by national convention and hence more d ire c tly by the people—a t le a s t osten sib ly . What, then, Is to be said In evaluating the caucus system? That 1t was pragm atically supported and opposed can be e a s ily I llu s tra te d by rec a llin g a few examples. Individual p o litic ia n s generally supported the arrangement when they b en efltted from I t , when th e ir fa v o rite , In o th er words, was the regular nominee. When they favored a d issid en t candidate they usually turned against the system and painted a black p ictu re o f I ts Ideological and co n stitu tio n a l Im pli catio n s. Thus, John Randolph was one o f the most vigorous persecuters of the caucus In 1808, when I t chose the man he d islik e d , though he had supported and defended the method In 1804, when 1t selected the candidate he favored. S tates often performed 1n much the same manner. For Instance, su b stan tial elements 1n N ew York, Including most of Its congressional d elegation, vigorously opposed the caucus In 1808 and 1812 when an Empire s ta te d issid e n t was In the rac e, but the s ta te le g isla tu re s p e c ific a lly endorsed the system 1n 1823 when Van Buren*s powerful Regency expected th e ir man Crawford to receive the congressional nod. Various p a rtie s and factio n s operated 1n a sim ilar manner. The F e d e ra lists, fo r example, used the caucus In 1800 when th e ir delegation to the national le g isla tu re was size ab le, but because th e ir p a rty 's re la tiv e ly small congressional represen tatio n scarcely ju s tif ie d such a method 1n subsequent y e ars, they opposed la te r Republican versions. What of th e v a lid ity and efficien cy o f the caucus? I t appears th a t the nominating system was probably the most e ffe c tiv e means which could have been employed under the given circum stances. The congress men had a good Idea o f th e ir co n stitu en ts' opinions and usually voted accordingly 1n caucus. As noted previously, la te r 1n the period 406 some electio n s to Congress revolved around the candidates' presiden t ia l choices. Thus, th ere seems to have been a reasonably accurate representation o f the popular w ill 1n addition to the comparative ease o f arranging a caucus. One f a u lt—a t le a s t s u p e rfic ia lly —was the fa c t th a t a f te r 1800 the d is tr ic ts represented by F ederalists had no say In choosing the nominees. But th is objection Is of dubious v a lid ity : I t must be realized th a t such areas were unlikely to choose Republican e le c to rs, anyway, and hence should have l i t t l e to say about th a t p a rty 's candidates. I t should also be pointed out th a t when the F ed eralists were s t i l l In the national b all game, many of the people unrepresented 1n th e caucus were represented, however In d ire c tly , a t the m inority p a rty 's embryonic nominating conventions 1n 1808 and 1812. Granted also th a t some congressmen boycotted the caucus, a reasonably large percentage of th e ir co n stitu en ts were no doubt sympathetic with th e ir reasons fo r refusing to atten d . The best case fo r the Inequity of the various types of non-representation can be found In those, notably Nathaniel Macon, who honestly opposed th e congressional system on the basis of p rin c ip le , but such men were s u ffic ie n tly rare th a t no gross v io latio n s occurred. During the l a t t e r p a rt of the reign o f King Caucus, th ere were so few F ederalists In Congress th a t a comparatively small number o f people were penalized by having n eith er representation 1n the choice of the Republican candidate nor the opportunity to se le c t an opponent from the n atio n ally defunct m inority ranks. Would the national nominating convention be an Improvement 407 over the congressional caucus? Yes, but not much. I t did put the power to name p resid en tial asp iran ts c lo se r to the people, a t le a s t In theory, and thus more fu lly s a tis fie d the burgeoning democratic s p i r i t o f the Age of Jackson. I t did end the caucus' contravention o f the separation of powers p rin cip le and thus helped to give the P resident a b it more Independence. I t should be re c a lle d , however, th a t our sacred cows o f separation o f powers and checks and balances are not lo g ic ally co n sisten t when viewed 1n the extreme: each Infringes on the o th er, so the change was a m atter o f degree ra th e r than kind. F in ally , though Id eally giving more Influence In nomi nations to the people, the convention was ju s t about as susceptible to Roberto M ichels' "Iron law o f oligarchy" as the caucus was; the most e ffe c tiv e and perceptive p o litic a l a c tiv is ts Inevitably form a cen tral core o f Influence from which they tend to make many of the leadership d ecisio n s, whatever the appearance o f dem ocratically stru ctu red organizations might be. While the caucus was undeniably based on the actions o f a re la tiv e few who were not selected sp e c ific a lly and so lely to make nominations, the more democratic appearing conventions usually developed much the same c h a ra c te ris tic s , because the most In flu e n tia l party leaders decided the actual se le c tio n o f candidates. Hence, I t seems reasonable to conclude th a t p resid en tial nominations during the Federal Era were made with re la tiv e effic le n c y - larg ely according to , and rep resen tativ e o f, the sentiments o f the people. Though the convention system adopted during the Jack sonian Era was an Improvement 1n some resp ects, I t was l i t t l e b e tte r 1n p ra c tic e , though somewhat more so In theory, than the caucus system which preceded I t . B IB LIO G R A PH Y I . Manuscript C ollections Adams Family Papers, Massachusetts H isto rical Society Ambler Family Papers, U niversity o f V irginia and V irginia H istor ica l Society John Ambler Papers, Library o f Congress Arnold-Screven Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina John Bailey Papers, New-York H isto rical Society William H. Ashley Papers, Missouri H istorical Society Baldwin Papers, Belnecke L ibrary, Yale U niversity Baldwin Family Papers, S terlin g L ibrary, Yale U niversity Barbour Family Papers, U niversity of V irginia James Barbour Papers, U niversity of V irginia and N ew York Public Library P h ilip P. Barbour Papers, V irginia H istorical Society Bates Papers, Missouri H isto rical Society Edward Bates Papers, V irginia H isto rical Society Bayard Family Papers, Maryland H isto rical Society James A. and Richard H. Bayard Papers, Library o f Congress James M . Bell Papers, Duke U niversity Thomas Hart Benton Papers, Missouri H istorical Society John M . Berrien Papers, Southern H istorical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina Nicholas Biddle Papers, Library of Congress 409 410 Horace Blnney Papers, H isto rical Society o f Pennsylvania B lair Family Papers, Library o f Congress Bla1r-Lee Papers, Princeton U niversity B1a1r-R1ves Papers, Library o f Congress Francis P. B lair Papers, Duke U niversity John Gray Blount Papers, North Carolina Department o f Archives and History Stephen R. Bradley Papers, Library o f Congress Branch Family Papers, Southern H istorical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina Breckinridge Family Papers, Library of Congress Brecklnrldge-M arshall Papers, Fllson Club James Breckinridge Correspondence, U niversity of V irginia A blather G. B ritto n Papers, Library of Congress Bedford Brown Papers, Duke U niversity Thomas Bradford Papers, Duke U niversity James Brown Personal Papers M iscellaneous, Library of Congress Bruce-Randolph C ollection, V irginia State Library John H. Bryan C ollection, North Carolina Department o f Archives and H istory Bryan Family Papers, V irginia S tate Library and U niversity of V irginia James Buchanan Papers, Library of Congress Aaron Burr Papers, Library of Congress and N ew York Public Library Aaron Burr Miscellaneous M anuscripts, New-York H isto rical Society Hutchins G. Burton Papers, Southern H istorical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina William A. Burwell Papers, Library o f Congress 411 Edward G. U. B utler Papers, Ouke U niversity Cabell Family Papers, U niversity o f Virginia William C. Cabell Personal Papers M iscellaneous, Library of Congress John C. Calhoun Papers, Duke U niversity, Clemson U niversity, Library o f Congress, and South Carol1n1ana L ibrary, Uni v e rsity o f South Carolina Cameron Family Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina Campbell-Preston-Floyd Papers, Library o f Congress David Campbell Papers, Duke U niversity George Washington Campbell Papers, Library of Congress Carroll-McTav1sh Papers, Maryland H isto rical Society Carter-Smlth Family Papers, U niversity o f V irginia Langdon Cheves Papers, South Carolina H istorical Society Walter Clark M anuscripts, North Carolina Department of Archives and History Henry Clay Papers, Library o f Congress, V irginia H istorical Society, Duke U niversity, and Ohio H istorical Society Henry Clay C ollection, U niversity o f V irginia Henry Clay Miscellaneous M anuscripts, New-York H istorical Society Joseph Clay Papers, N ew York Public Library Thomas J . Clay Papers, Library of Congress Thomas J . Clay C ollection, Library o f Congress D e W itt Clinton Papers, Columbia U niversity and N ew York Public Library De W itt Clinton Miscellaneous M anuscripts, New-York H istorical Society De W1tt Clinton Personal Papers M iscellaneous, Library o f Congress George Clinton Papers, N ew York Public Library 412 George Clinton M iscellaneous M anuscripts, New-York H isto rical Society John Clopton Papers, Duke U niversity John Coffee Papers, Dyas C o llectio n , Tennessee H istorical Society William Coleman Miscellaneous M anuscripts, New-York H isto rical Society Lewis S. Coryell Correspondence, H istorical Society o f Pennsylvania. William H. Crawford Papers, Duke U niversity and Library o f Con gress John J . C rittenden Papers, Library o f Congress and Duke U niversity John Cropper Papers, V irginia H istorical Society David Daggett Papers, Belnecke Library, Yale U niversity David Daggett C ollection, S te rlin g L ibrary, Yale U niversity Dallas Papers, H isto rical Society o f Pennsylvania William Darlington Papers, Library of Congress William R. Davie Papers, North Carolina Department o f Archives and H istory and Southern H istorical C ollection, U niversity of North Carolina Joseph H. and Samuel Davelss Papers, Fllson Club Henry W . DeSaussure Papers, South Carollnlana L ibrary, U niversity o f South Carolina Joseph Desha Papers, Library of Congress Andrew J . DoneIson Papers, Library of Congress Dreer C ollection, H isto rical Society of Pennsylvania William Duane Personal Papers M iscellaneous, Library of Congress William Duer Papers, New-York H istorical Society EdgehHI-Randolph Papers, U niversity of V irginia Weldon N. Edwards L e tte rs, Duke U niversity 413 E llis Papers, V irginia H isto rical Society E ttlng C ollection, H istorical Society o f Pennsylvania William E ustls Papers, Library o f Congress Thomas Ewing Papers, Ohio H istorical Society F ed eralist L e tte rs , U niversity o f V irginia M illard Fillm ore Papers, Buffalo and Erie County H istorical Society Azarlah C. Flagg Papers, N ew York Public Library John Floyd Papers, Library o f Congress Ebenezer Foote Papers, Library o f Congress P eter Force Papers, Library o f Congress Philo C. F u ller Papers, Buffalo and Erie County H istorical Society A lbert G allatin Papers, New-York H istorical Society Galloway-Maxcy-Markoe Papers, Library o f Congress James M . G arnett Papers, Duke U niversity William Gaston Papers, Southern H istorical C ollection, University of North Carolina Edmund C. Genet Papers, Library of Congress El bridge Gerry Papers, Library o f Congress Nicholas Gilman Papers, Library o f Congress Francis W . Gilmer Papers, Missouri H istorical Society Samuel Gouvemeur Papers, N ew York Public Library Gideon and Francis Granger Papers, Library o f Congress Gratz C o llectio n s, H istorical Society o f Pennsylvania Edwin Gray Papers, Duke U niversity Duff Green Papers, Library of Congress and Southern H istorical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina 414 Robert E. G riffith s Papers, H isto rical Society o f Pennsylvania Felix Grundy Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina. Alexander Hamilton Papers, Library of Congress Alexander Hamilton Miscellaneous M anuscripts, New-York H istorical Society and N ew York Public Library James H. Hairmond Papers, Library o f Congress and South Carol 1n1 ana Library* U niversity o f South Carolina Harper-Pennlngton Papers, Maryland H isto rical Society Robert Goodloe Harper Papers, Library o f Congress Robert Goodloe Harper L e tte rs, Maryland H isto rical Society Burton Harrison C ollection, Library o f Congress William Henry Harrison Papers, Library o f Congress Hayes C ollection, North Carolina Department o f H istory and Archlves Ernest Haywood C ollection, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina James Heaton Papers, Library of Congress Thomas Henderson Papers, Fllson Club Hickman C ollection, Fllson Club Michael Hofftoan Miscellaneous M anuscripts, New-York H istorical Society Hopklnson Papers, H isto rical Society o f Pennsylvania Hurja C ollection, Tennessee H istorical Society Harry Innes Papers, Library of Congress James Ired ell Papers, Duke U niversity William Irvine Papers, H istorical Society o f Pennsylvania Ralph Izard Papers, Library of Congress and South Carol1n1ana L ibrary, U niversity o f South Carolina 415 Jackson-lewls Correspondence, N ew York Public Library Andrew Jackson Papers, Library of Congress, Tennessee S tate Library and Archives, and Missouri H isto rical Society Andrew Jackson Miscellaneous M anuscripts, New-York H istorical Society John Jay Papers, Columbia U niversity Thomas Jefferson Papers, Library o f Congress, U niversity of V irginia, and Missouri H isto rical Society Charles E. Johnson C ollection, North Carolina Department of Archives and H istory Richard M . Johnson Papers, Library o f Congress Richard M . Johnson Miscellaneous M anuscripts, Fllson Club Robert E. Johnson Papers, Duke U niversity Joslah S. Johnston Papers, H isto rical Society of Pennsylvania Calvin Jones Papers, Southern H isto rical C o llectio n , U niversity of North Carolina Joseph Jones Papers, Duke U niversity William Jones Papers, H istorical Society o f Pennsylvania James Kent Papers, Library o f Congress Joseph Kent Miscellaneous M anuscripts, New-York H isto rical Society Benjamin King Papers, Library of Congress Richard H. King Papers, North Carolina Department o f Archives and H istory Rufus King Papers, New-York H isto rical Society Ephraim Kirby Papers, Duke U niversity John Landes Papers, Duke U niversity Richard Bland Lee Papers, Library o f Congress Lenoir Family Papers, Southern H istorical C o llectio n , U niversity of North Carolina 416 Thomas Lenoir Papers, Duke U niversity Robert R. Livingston Papers, New-York H isto rical Society and N ew York Public Library Lloyd Family Papers, Maryland H isto rical Society George Logan Papers, H isto rical Society o f Pennsylvania William Lowndes Papers, Southern H isto rical C ollection, U niversity of North Carolina Lucas C ollection, Missouri H isto rical Society Nathaniel Macon Papers, Duke U niversity, North Carolina Department ‘ o f History and Archives, and Southern H istorical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina Nathaniel Macon Correspondence, U niversity o f V irginia James Madison Papers, Library o f Congress, N ew York Public Library, and U niversity o f V irginia Manlgault Family Papers, South C arollnlana L ibrary, U niversity of South Carolina William L. Marcy Papers, Library o f Congress Robert Marlon Papers, Duke U niversity John Marshall Papers, Library o f Congress Duncan McArthur Papers, Library o f Congress George McDuffie Papers, Duke U niversity McGregor C o llectio n , U niversity o f V irginia McHenry Family Papers, Maryland H isto rical Society James McHenry Papers, Library o f Congress and Maryland H isto rical Society Thomas McKean Papers, H istorical Society o f Pennsylvania John McLean Papers, Library o f Congress Return Jonathan Meigs Papers, Ohio H istorical Society Mercer Papers, V irginia H istorical Society 417 Charles F. Mercer Miscellaneous M anuscripts, New-York H istorical Society Meredith Papers, H isto rical Society o f Pennsylvania John Mllledge Papers, Duke U niversity Miscellaneous M anuscripts, Tennessee H istorical Society James Monroe Papers, Library o f Congress, N ew York Public L ibrary, and U niversity o f V irginia Gouvemeur Morris Papers, Library o f Congress Hugh Nelson Papers, Library o f Congress Wilson Cary Nicholas Papers, Library o f Congress and Ihrtverslty o f V irginia Joseph H. Nicholson Papers, Library of Congress Harrison Gray 0t1s Papers, Massachusetts H istorical Society Harrison Gray 0t1s M iscellaneous M anuscripts, N ew York Public Library John Overton Papers, Claybrooke and Murdock C ollection, Tennessee H istorical Society George Washington Patterson Papers, U niversity o f Rochester Timothy Pickering Papers, Massachusetts H istorical Society and Library o f Congress Pinckney Family Papers, South Carolina H istorical Society and Library of Congress Charles C. Pinckney Papers, Duke U niversity and South Carollnlana L ibrary, U niversity o f South Carolina Thomas Pinckney Papers, South Carolina H istorical Society William Plumer Papers, Library o f Congress James K. Polk Papers, Library o f Congress William Polk Papers, North Carolina Department o f Archives and History P eter B. P orter Papers, Buffalo and Erl re County H istorical Society 418 Preston Family Papers, V irginia H isto rical Society Randolph-Gamett Correspondence, U niversity of V irginia Randolph-Garnett Letterbook, Library o f Congress Randolph-Bleecker Letterbook, U niversity o f Virginia John Randolph L e tte rs, Huntington Library John Randolph M anuscripts, Missouri H istorical Society John Randolph Papers, Italv erslty o f V irginia, Library o f Congress, and V irginia H isto rical Society Jacob Read Papers, South C arollnlana L ibrary. U niversity of South Carolina Thomas R itchie Papers, Library o f Congress William C. Rives Papers, Library o f Congress Jonathan Roberts Papers, H isto rical Society o f Pennsylvania James H. Rochelle Papers, Duke U niversity Caesar A. Rodney Papers, Library o f Congress Thomas Ruffin Papers, Southern H istorical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina Richard Rush Papers, Library o f Congress and H istorical Society of Pennsylvania Jonathan Russell Papers, Brown U niversity and Massachusetts H istorical Society Jonathan Russell Personal Papers, Miscellaneous Library of Congress John Rutherfoord Papers, Duke U niversity Rutledge Papers, Dreer C o llectio n , H isto rical Society o f Pennsylvania Edward Rutledge Papers, South C arollnlana L ibrary, U niversity o f South Carolina John Rutledge, J r . , Papers, Southern H istorical C ollection, U niversity o f North Carolina and Duke University 419 Theodore Sedgwick Papers, Massachusetts H istorical Society and Library o f Congress William H. Seward Papers, U niversity of Rochester and Library o f Congress Isaac Shelby Papers, Fllson Club Shlppen Family Papers, Library o f Congress William Short L e tte rs, Gelpln Family Papers, H isto rical Society of Pennsylvania Daniel F, Slaughter Papers, Duke U niversity John Smith Miscellaneous M anuscripts, New-York H istorical Society John Cotton Smith Papers, Library o f Congress John Cotton Smith L e tte rs, Belnecke L ibrary, Yale U niversity Jonathan Bayard Smith Family Papers, Library of Congress Samuel Smith Papers, Library of Congress William Loughton Smith Papers, South Carollnlana L ibrary, U niversity o f South C arolina, Library o f Congress, and Huntington Library William Loughton Smith Miscellaneous M anuscripts, Wragg Papers, South Carolina H istorical Society Alexander Smyth Papers, Duke U niversity Samuel L. Southard Papers, Princeton U niversity and Library of Congress Richard Stanford Personal Papers M iscellaneous, Library of Congress John Steele Papers, Southern H istorical C ollection, U niversity of North Carolina Andrew Stevenson Papers, Library o f Congress Henry Storrs Miscellaneous M anuscripts, New-York H istorical Society Joseph Story Papers, Library of Congress Alexander H. H. S tu art Papers, Library of Congress Thomas Sumter Papers, Library o f Congress Crred Taylor Papers, U niversity o f V irginia John Taylor L e tte rs, Duke University John W . Taylor Papers, New-York H isto rical Society Tazewell Family Papers, V irginia S tate Library Charles Thomson Papers, Library o f Congress Nicholas P. T rls t Papers, Library of Congress Henry S t. George Tucker Papers, Duke U niversity Henry S t. George Tucker L e tte rs, U niversity of V irginia William Tunstall Papers, Duke U niversity John Tyler Papers, Library of Congress Daniel Ullmann Papers, New-York H istorical Society U. S. M iscellany, Library o f Congress Martin Van Buren Papers, Library o f Congress Martin Van Buren Miscellaneous M anuscripts, New-York H istorical Society Van Cortlandt Papers, N ew York Public Library William P. Van Ness Papers, N ew York Public Library K illian K. Van Rensselaer Miscellaneous M anuscripts, New-York H isto rical Society P h ilip Van Rensselaer Miscellaneous M anuscripts, New-York H isto rical Society P eter Van Schaack Papers, Library of Congress Gullan C. Verplanck Papers, New-York H isto rical Society George Watterson Papers, Library of Congress Daniel Webster Papers, Library o f Congress Daniel Webster Miscellaneous M anuscripts, New-York H istorical Society 421 Thurlow Weed Papers, U niversity o f Rochester and Library of Congress Thurlow W eed Miscellaneous M anuscripts, New-York H istorical Society Gideon Welles Papers, Library o f Congress Whig Party Miscellaneous M anuscripts, New-York H istorical Society William W1rt Papers, Library of Congress and Maryland H istorical Society O liver W olcott, J r . , Papers, Connecticut H istorical Society and Library o f Congress Levi Woodbury Papers, Library o f Congress Thomas Worthington Papers, Ohio H isto rical Society and Library o f Congress W rlght-Butler L e tte rs, N ew York Public Library John C. Wright Papers, Library o f Congress B a rtle tt Yancey Papers, Southern H isto rical C o llectio n , University o f North Carolina I I . Printed Sources Adams, Charles F rancis, ed. Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Comprising Portions o f His Diary from 1/95 to 16457 P hiladelphia; L ippincott, 1874-1877. 12 vols. , ed. The Works o f John Adams, Second P re s ld e n to f the United S ta te s . Boston: L ittle , Brown, 1850-1856. TO T vols. Adams, Henry, ed. The Writings o f A lbert G a lla tin . Philadelphia: L1pp1ncott, 18791 3 vols. Ambler, Charles H. The Life and Diary o f John Floyd. Richmond: Richmond P ress, 1918 Ames. Seth. ed. Works of Fisher Ames. Boston: L ittle , Brown, 1854. 2 voTT . Annals of the Congress of the United S ta te s . Washington, D.C.: Gales and Seaton, 1854-1856. 422 A ustin, James T. The Life of Elbrldqe Gerry, with Contemporary L e tte rs . Boston: Wens“ an<f L llly T 1527-1629.' 2 vbls.' B assett, John Spencer, ed. The Correspondence o f Andrew Jackson Washington, D. C.: Carnegie in s titu tio n , 1926-1935. 7 vols. Benton, Thomas H art. T hirty Years' View: o r A H istory o f the Working o f the American Government fo r T hirty Years, from 1820 to 1850. N ew York: Appleton, 1954, 2 vols. Brook, E lizabeth, ed. "F ed eralist Jerem iahs," American H istorical Review, XLIII (October, 1937), 74-78. Brown, E verett Som erville, ed. The Missouri Compromises and P resid en tial P o litic s , 1820-1825, from the L etters o f William Plumer, Ju n io r, R epresentative from N ew Hampshire. S r. Louis""' Missouri H istorical S ociety, 1926.------- -------- Brown, S tu art Gerry, ed. Autobiography o f James Monroe. Syra cuse: Syracuse U niversity P ress, 1959. Burke, Pauline Wilcox. Emily Donelson of Tennessee. Richmond: G arrett and Massle, 1941. 2 vols. B u tte rfie ld , L. H ., Leonard C. Faber, and Wendell D. G arrett, eds. Diary and Autobiography o f John Adams. Cambridge: Harvard U niversity P ress, 1961. 4 vols. B u tte rfie ld , L.H ., ed. L etters of Benjamin Rush. Princeton, N .J., Princeton U niversity P ress, 1951. 2 vols. Cappon, L ester J . , ed. The Adams-Jefferson L e tte rs: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams. Chape) H it): U niversity o f North Carolina P ress, TOST 2 vols. Colton, Calvin, ed. The Works o f Henry Clay. N ew York: Putnam's Sons, 1904, 10 vols. Com er, George W., ed. The Autobiography o f Benjamin Rush. P rinceton, N. J . , Princeton U niversity P ress, 1948. C ra lle, Richard K ., ed. The Works of John C. Calhoun. N ew York: Appleton, 1888, 6 v o ls. ' Davis, Matthew L. Memoirs o f Aaron Burr, with Miscellaneous Selec- tlo n s from His Correspondence. N ew York: Harper & Brothers. i m . 2 "voTsV ------- ------------ Davis, Richard Beale, ed. Correspondence of Thomas Jefferson and Francis Walker G1ler. Columbia: U niversity of South Carolina P ress, 1946. ed. Jeffersonian America: Notes on the United S tates of America Collected In the Years~18o5-6-7 and 11-12 by S1r~ Augustus John fo s te r. San Marino, C a lifo rn ia .: Huntington LlB rary,"lifer:---------- Donnan, E lizabeth, ed. Papers of James A. Bayard, 1796-1815. Annual Report of the American H isto rical A ssociation? Washington, D.C.: Government P rinting O ffice, 1915. Vol. I I . Exposition o f Motives fo r Opposing the Nomination o f Mr. Monroe fo r the O ffice o f President~of the United S ta te s ! Wash ington, D.C.: Jonathan E llio t, 1816. F itz p a tric k , John C ., ed. The Autobiography of Martin Van Buren. Annual Report o f the American H isto rical A ssociation. Washington, D.C.: Government P rinting O ffice, 1920. Vol. II . , ed. The D iaries o f George Washington, 1748-1799. Boston and N ew Vork: Houghton-MiffUn, 19Z5. 4 vols. , ed. The W ritings of GgofgeJWashington, from the O riginal Manuscript Sources, 1745-1797! Washington: Government P rin tin g O ffice, 1931-1944. 39 vols. Ford, Paul L eicester, ed. The Works of Thomas Jefferso n . N ew York and London: Putnam's Sons, 1904-1905. 12 vols. Ford, Worthington Chauncey, ed. W ritings o f John Quincy Adams N ew York: Macmillan, 1913-1917. 7 vols. G a lla tin , Count, ed. The Diary o f James G a lla tin , Secretary to A lbert G allatin. N ew Vork: S crib n er's Sons, 1916. Gibbs, George, ed. Memoirs of the Adm inistrations o f Washington and John Adams. Edited from the Papers of O liver Wolcott Secretary of the Treasury. N ew York: W . V a V i Norden, 1846. 2 vols. Hamilton, James A. Reminiscences o f James A. Hamilton. N ew York: S cribner, 186?! Hamilton, J.G . de Roulhac, ed. The Papers of Thomas Ruffin. Raleigh, N.C.: Edwards & Broughton, 1918-1920. 4 vols. , ed. The Papers o f Will 1am Alexander Graham. Raleigh, N.C. North Carolina Department o f Archives and H istory, 1957- 424 1961. 4 v o ls . Hamilton, S tanislaus Murray, ed. The W r111 n g so fJam esM o n ro e. N ew York and London: Putnam's Sons, 1§98-1$03. 7 vols. Hammond, Jabez. The H istory of P o litic a l P a rties In the S tate of New-YorkT ^rom the_Rat1f1cation of the federal Consti tu tio n to december, 1640. tooperstown, N.Y.: H. 4 E. ^ I h n e y T T P r ’ 7 voTs"." H astings, Hugh and J.A . Holden, eds. Public Papers of George C linton, F irs t Governor o f N ew York, 1777-1795, 1801-1804. N ew Vork and Albany: N ew York S ta te , 1899-1914. 10 vols. Hay, Thomas Robson, ed. "John C. Calhoun and the P resid en tial Campaign of 1824: Some Unpublished L e tte rs," American H isto rical Review, X L (October, 1934, and January, 1935), S2-w; m -m . Haynes, George H., ed. "L etters of Samuel Taggart," American Antiquarian Society Proceedings, N ew S e rie s, XXXItI (1923). Hopkins, James F. and Mary W .M . Hargreaves, eds. The Papers o f Henry Clay. Lexlnqton: U niversity of Kentucky P ress, T 9 5 9 ^ T vol's. Hunt, H alliard , ed. The W ritings of James Madison, Comprising His Public Papers and Correspondence, Including Numerous l e t t e r s and- Documents N ow fo r the F irs t Time Published. N ew Vork: Putnam's Sons, 190o-19ld. 9 vols. Jameson, J . F ranklin, ed. Correspondence of John C. Calhoun. Annual Report o f the American H isto rical A ssociation. Washington, D.C.: Government P rinting O ffice, 1900. Vol. II , ed. L etters of Stephen H1oq1nson, 1783-1804. Annual Report o f the American H isto rical A ssociation. Washington, D.C.: Government P rin tin g O ffice, 1898. Johnston, Henry P ., ed. The Correspondence and Publlc Papers of John Jay. N ew York and London: Putnam's Sons, 1890-1893. T v o lsT " Keith, A lice Barnwell and William H. Masterson, eds. The John Gray Blount Papers. Ralelgn, N.C.: North Carolina Depart ment o f Archives and H istory, 1952-1965. 3 vols. King, Charles R ., ed. The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King. N ew York: Putnam's Sons, 1894-1900. 6 vols. Lathrop, Barnes F ., ed. "Monroe on the Adams-Clay 'B arg ain ,'" American H isto rical Review, XLII (Ju ly , 1937), 273-76. 425 L etters from John P lntard to His Daughter, E liza Noel Plntard Davidson, 1816-1833. N ew York: New-York H isto rical Soc1ety, 1940-1941. 4 vols. Lipscomb, Andrew A ., ed. The W ritings o f Thomas Jefferso n . Washington, D.C., Jefferson Memorial A ssociation, 1905. 20 vols. 1n 10. Lodge, Henry Cabot. Life and L etters of George Cabot. Boston: L ittle , Brown, 1878. , ed. The Works o f Alexander Hamilton. N ew York and London: Putnam's Sons, 1904. 12 vols. M allory, D aniel, ed. The Life and Speeches o f the Hon, Henry Clay. New York: A.5. Barnes, 1857. 2 vols. Malone, Dumas, ed. Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and P ierre Samuel de Pont Nemours, 1798-1817, Trans, by Llnwood Lehman. Boston and N ew York: Houghton-M1ffl1n, 1930. Mayo, Bernard, ed. Jefferson Himself: The Personal N*r r a t 1ye o f a Many-Sided American. Boston: Houghton-Mlfflln, 1942. McGrane, Reginald C ., ed. The Correspondence o f Nicholas Biddle Deallnq with National A ffa irs, 1807-1844. Boston and New York: Houghton M ifflin , 1919.--------------- McRee, G riffin J . Life and Correspondence of James I re d e ll. N ew York: Appleton, 1857. z vols. Meriwether, Robert L. and W . Edwin Hemphill, eds. The Papers of John Caldwell Calhoun. Columbia: U niversity of South Carolina P ress, 1959-. 2 v o ls. "Missouri Compromise. L etters to James Barbour, Senator of V irginia 1n the Congress o f the United S ta te s," William and Marv College Q uarterly, F irs t S e rie s, X (Ju ly , 1901), 5-25. [James Monroe L e tte rs ], B ulletin o f the N ew York Public L ibrary, V (1901), 373-75. Moore, John B assett, ed. The Works o f James Buchanan, Comprising His Speeches, S tate Papers, and P rivate Correspondence. Riw York’: Antiquarian Society; lM .'H 2 " w T T . Morlson, Samuel E11ot. The Life and L etters o f Harrison Gray 0 t1 s. F ed e ra list, 1765-1848. Boston: Little-Brow n, 1013. 2 VOIS. 426 Nevlns, Allan, ed. The Diary of Philip Hone, 1828-1851. N ew York: Dodd, Mead, 1927. 2 vols. Perkins, Bradford. "A Diplomat's Wife In Philadelphia: L etters of H enrietta L iston, 1796-1800," William and Mary Q uarterly, Third S e rie s, X I (October, 1954), 592-632. P h illip s , U lrich B ., ed. "South Carolina F ed eralist Correspon dence. 1789-1797," American H isto rical Rr lew, X IV (Ju ly , 1909), 776-790. Plumer, W illiam, J r . Life o f William Plumer. Boston: P h illip s , Sampson, 1857. Proceedings of the National Republican Convention of Young M en. Washington, b.C.: 6a)es and Seaton, 1832. Richardson, James D., ed. Messages and Papers of the Presidents. Washington: Bureau of National L iteratu re, 1912. 11 vol's. Seward, Frederick W . William H. Seward: A n Autobiography from 1831 to 1834, w ltF a Memoir o f His L ife, and Selections from His L e tte rs, 1631-1846. N ew Vork: Oerby & M iller, 1891. 2 vols. Shanks, Henry Thomas, ed. The Papers o f WHlle Person Mangum. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina Department of Archives and H istory, 1950-1956. 5 vols. Steiner, Bernard C., ed. The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry. Cleveland: Burrows, 19o7. Stlckney, William, ed. The Autobiography of A m os Kendall. N ew York: P eter Smith, 1949. [Sul11 van, William, e d .]. Fam iliar L etters on Public C haracters, and Public Events, from the Peace of 1783, to the Peace of 1815. Boston: 'B u ss e ll, Odlorne, ariJM etcalf, 1834.--------- Swain, James B ., ed. The Life and Speeches o f Henrv Clav. N ew York: Greeley and McElrath, 1843. 2 vols. Van Buren, M artin. Ingulrv Into the Origins and Course of P o ll- tlc a l P arties In the United S tates. N ew York: Hurd and Houghton, 1867.----------------------------- V an Tyne, Claude H., ed. The L etters of Daniel Webster. N ew York: McClure and P h illip s, 1902. Wagstaff, Henry M., ed. The Papers o f John S te e le . Raleigh, N.C.: Edwards & Broughton, 1924. 2 vols. 427 Warren, Charles. Jacobin and Junto, o r. Early American P o litics as Viewed In Ihe D iary "o O r. Nathaniel ^ s . 1755-1852.— Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1931. Washburn, Charles G renfU l, ed. "L etters of Thomas Boylston Adams to William Smith Shaw, 1799-1823," Proceedings o f the American Antiquarian S ociety, N ew S e rie s, XXVII ( m 7 ) , 53-176.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Washington to the People of the United State s on the Choice of a P re sid e n t Boston: n .p ., 1812. Webster, Fletcher, ed. The Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster. Boston: L ittle , Brown, 1857. 2 vols. , ed. The W ritings and Speeches o f Daniel Webster. Boston: L ittle , Brown, 1903. 18 vols. I I I . Newspapers and P eriodicals American and Commercial Dally A dvertiser Albany Argus Aurora (Philadelphia) Columbian Centlnel (Boston) Columbian S tar (Washington, D.C.) C olvin's Weekly R egister (Washington, D.C.) N ew York Commercial A dvertiser Charleston Courier Richmond Enquirer N ew York Evening Post The Examiner (New York) The Globe (Washington, D.C.) Maryland Republican (Annapolis) National In te llig e n c e r (Washington, D.C.) National Journal (Washington, D.C.) N iles' Weekly R egister (Baltimore) 428 The Northern Post (Salem, N.Y.) Saturday Evening Post (Philadelphia) United States Telegraph (Washington, D.C.) IV. Periodical A rtic les Abemethy, Thomas P. "Andrew Jackson and the Rise of Southwestern Democracy," American H istorical Review. XXXIII (October, 1927), 64-77. Amm on, Harry. "The Formation o f the Republican Party 1n V irginia, 1789-1796." Journal o f Southern H istory, X IX (August, 1953), 283-310. . "The Genet Mission and the Development of P o litic a l P a rtie s ," Journal o f American H istory. H I (March, 1966), 725-41. . "James Monroe and the Election of 1808 In V irginia," William and Mary Q uarterly, Third S e rie s, X X (January, 1963), 33-56. . "James Monroe and the Era of Good Feelings," The V irginia M agazine of H istory and Biography, L X V I (October, 1958) 387-98. . "The Jeffersonian Republicans 1n V irginia: A n In te r p re ta tio n ," The V irginia Magazine of H istory and Biography, L X X I (A pril, 1963), T53-67. . "The Richmond Junto, 1800-1824," The V irginia Magazine o f H istory and Biography, LXI (October, 1953), 395-419. Becker, C arl. "The Unit Rule 1n National Nominating Conventions," American H isto rical Review, V (October, 1899), 64-82. B rant, Irving. "James Madison and His Times," American H istorical Review, LVII (Ju ly , 1952), 853-70. Brown, E verett S. "The P resid en tial Election of 1824-1825," P o litic a l Science Q uarterly, X L (September, 1925), 384-403. Capers, Gerald M . "A Reconsideration of John C. Calhoun's Tran s itio n from Nationalism to N u llific a tio n ," Journal of Southern H istory, XIV (February, 1948), 34-41T C harles, Joseph. "Adams and Jefferso n : The Origins o f the American Party System," William and Mary Q uarterly, 429 Third S e rie s, XII (Ju ly , 1955), 410-47. . "Hamilton and Washington: The Origins of the American Party System," William and Mary Q uarterly, Third S e rie s, XII (A p ril, 1955), 2T7-67. . "The Jay Treaty: The O rigins of the American Party System," William and Mary Q uarterly, Third S e rie s, XII (October,”1955), 5 8 1 -6 3 0 .----------t Chase, James Staton. "Jacksonian Democracy and the Rise of the Nominating Convention," Mid-America: A Journal o f H istory. X L V (October, 1963), 2Z9-W .-------------------- --------------------- Comettl, E lizabeth. "John Rutledge, J r . , F e d e ra list," Journal o f Southern H istory, XIII (May, 1947), 186-219. ----------- Cunningham, Noble E ., J r . "John Beckley: An Early P o litic a l Manager," William and Mary Q uarterly, Third S e rie s, XIII (January, 1956), 40-5z. . "W ho Were the Quids?" M ississippi Valley H isto rical Review, L, (June, 1963), 257-'53. — ----------------- C u rtis, James C. "Andrew Jackson and His Cabinet: Some N ew Evidence," Tennessee H isto rical Q uarterly, XXVII (Summer, 1968), 157-tfC----------------— ------ ------------L D arling, Arthur B. "Jacksonian Democracy In M assachusetts, 1824- 1828," American H isto rical Review, X X IX (January. 1924). 271-287.---------------------------------------- Davis, Richard B. and Mllledge B. S leg ler, "Peter Freneau,C arolina Republican," Journal of Southern H istory, XIII (Auqust, 194^ 395-405. ---------------------------------------- DeConde, Alexander. "Washington's Farew ell, the French A lliance, and the Election o f 1796," M ississippi Valley H istorical Review, XLIII (March, 1957), 641-56. Dodd, William E. "The Place o f Nathaniel Macon 1n Southern H istory," American H isto rical Review, VII (Ju ly , 1902) 663-75. Fischer, David H. "The Myth o f the Essex Junto," William and Mary Q uarterly, Third S e rie s, X X I (A pril, 1964), 191-235. Freehllng, William W . "Spoilsmen and In te re sts In the Thought and Career of John C. Calhoun," Journal of American H istory, LII (June, 1965), 25-42. 430 G a tell, Frank O tto. "Money and Party 1n Jacksonian America: A Q uantitative Look a t N ew York C ity 's M en o f Q uality." P o litic a l Science Q uarterly, LXXXII (June, 1967), 235-52. . "Sober Second Thoughts on Van Buren, The Albany Regency, and the Wall S tre e t Conspiracy," Journal o f American H istory, LIII (June, 1966), 19-40. Goodman, Paul. "Social S tatus o f Party Leadership: The House o f R epresentatives, 1797-1804," Hill1am and Mary Q uarterly, Third S e rie s, X X V (Ju ly , 1968), 4fl£7?: Goodman, Warren H. "The Origins of the Mar of 1812: A Survey of Chanqlnq In te rp re ta tio n s," M ississippi Valley H istorical Review, XXVII (September, 1941), 171-86. Govan, Thomas P. "John M . Berrien and the Adm inistration o f Andrew Jackson," Journal o f Southern H istory, V (November, 1939), 447-67. Green, Fletcher M . "Duff Green, M ilitan t Jo u rn a list o f the Old School," American H isto rical Review, LII (January, 1947), 248-264. ---------------------------------------- H allperln, Herman. "Pro-Jackson Sentiment 1n Pennsylvania, 1820- 1828," Pennsylvania Magazine o f H istory and Biography, L (Ju ly , 1926), 193-238. H aller, Mark H. "The Rise o f the Jackson Party 1n Maryland, 1820- 1829," Journal o f Southern History* XXVIII (Auqust, 1962), 307-26. H arrison, Joseph Hobson, J r . "Martin Van Buren and His Southern Supporters," Journal of Southern H istory, XXII (November, 1956), 438-58. H arrison, Lowell H. "John Breckinridge and the V1ce-Pres1dency, 1804: A P o litic a l Episode," The Fllson Club H istory Q uarterly, X X V I (A pril, 1952), 155-S5'. Honeywell, Roy J . "President Jefferson and His Successor," American H isto rical Review, X LV I (October, 1940). 120-36. Lerche, Charles 0 . , J r . , "Jefferson and the Election o f 1800: A Case Study In the P o litic a l Smear," William and Mary Q uarterly, Third S e rie s, V (October, 1948), 467-9). Longaker, Richard P. "Was Jackson's Kitchen Cabinet a Cabinet?" M ississippi Valley H istorical Review, X LIV (June, 1957), 94*108. M arshall, Lynn L. "The Strange S tillb ir th o f the Whig P arty," 431 American H isto rical Review, LXXII (January* 1967), 445-68. McCormick, Richard P. "Some N ew Perspectives on Jacksonian P o litic s ," American H istorical Review, L X V (January, 1960), 288-3UT. . "Suffrage Classes and Party Alignments: A Study In Voter Behavior," M ississippi Valley H isto rical Review, X L V I (December, 1959), 397-410. " ------------------------- Miles Edwin A. "Andrew Jackson and Senator George Poindexter," Journal o f Southern H istory, X X IV (February, 1958), 51-67. Morgan, William G. "Andrew Jackson Versus John Quincy Adams: Their Biographers and the 'Corrupt Bargain* Charge," Tennessee H isto rical Q uarterly X X V I (Spring, 1967), 43-58. , "The 'C orrupt Bargain' Charge Against Clay and Adams: A n H1stor1oqraph1ca1 A nalysis," The Fllson Club History Q uarterly, XLII (A p ril, 1968), 132-49" . "Henry C lay's Biographers and the 'Corrupt Bargain' Charge," The R egister of the Kentucky H isto rical Society LX V I (July,'196'8), 242-58.--------- L Morlson, Samuel E H ot. "The F irs t National Nominating Convention," American H isto rical Review, XVII (Ju ly , 1912), 744-763. Morse, Anson D. "The P o litic s o f John Adams," American H istorical Review, IV (January, 1899), 292-312. Murdock, John S. "The F irs t National Nominating Convention," American H isto rical Review. I (Ju ly , 1896), 680-683. Nagel, Paul C. "The Election o f 1824: A Reconsideration Based on Newspaper Opinion," Journal of Southern H istory. X X V I (August, 1960), 315-29. O strogorskl, Mosel. "The Rise and Fall of the Nominating Caucus, L eg islativ e and Congressional," American H istorical Review, V (January, 1900), 253-283. Pancake, John S. "Aaron Burr: Would-Be Usurper," William and Mary Q uarterly, Third S erie s, VIII (A p ril, 1951), 2o4-l3. . "The 'I n v is ib le s ': A Chapter 1n the Opposition to P resident Madison," Journal o f Southern H istory, X X I (February, 1955), 17-371 P au llln , C.O. "The E lectoral Vote fo r John Quincy Adams 1n 1820,” American H istorical Review, X X I (January, 1916), 318-19. 432 Pessen, Edward. "The Workingmen's Movement of the Jacksonian Era," M ississippi Valley H isto rical Review, XLIII (December, 1956),' 4 2 8 - 4 3 .--------------------------------------- P h illip s , Ulrich B. "The South Carolina F e d e ra lists,” American H istorical Review, XIV (April and Ju ly , 1909), 529-43, >31- Pole, J.R . "Suffrage and Representation In M assachusetts: A S ta tis tic a l Note," William and Mary Q uarterly, Third S eries, XIV (October, 1957), 560-92. P rince, Carl E. "Patronage and a Party Machine: N ew Jersey Democratic-Republican A c tiv ists, 1801-1816," William and Mary Q uarterly, Third S erie s, X X I (October, 1964), 571-78. Remlnl, Robert V. "Martin Van Buren and the T a riff of Abomi n atio n s, "American H isto rical Review, LXIII (Ju ly , 1958), 903-17. R lsjord, Nomran K. "1812" Conservatives, War Hawks, and the N ation's Honor," William and Mary Q uarterly, Third S erie s, XVII (A pril, 1961)," 196-210. . "The V1rq1n1a F e d e ra lists," Journal of Southern H istory, XXXIII (November, 1967), 486-517": S e lle rs , Charles G ., J r . "Banking and P o litic s 1n Jackson's Tennessee, 1817-1827," M ississippi Valley H isto rical Review, XLI (June, 1954), 61-84. . "Jackson M en with Feet o f Clav," American H istorical Review, LXII (A p ril, 1957), 537-51. Stenberg, Richard R. "Jackson's 'Rhea L e tte r' Hoax,” Journal of Southern H istory. II (November, 1936), 480-96. . "The Jefferson Birthday Dinner, 1830," Journal o f Southern H istory. IV (August, 1938), 334-45. Stevens, Harry R. "Henry Clay, the Bank, and the West In 1824," American H istorical Review. L X (Ju ly , 1955), 843-48. Sydnor, Charles S. "The One-Party Period of American H istory," American H istorical Review, LI (A pril, 1946), 439-51. Turner, Lynn W . "The E lectoral Vote Against Monroe In 1820— A n American Legend," M ississippi Valley H istorical Review, XLII (September, 1955),"250-73.--------- ------------------------------ Walton, Joseph S. "Nominating Conventions In Pennsylvania," American H istorical Review, II (January, 1897), 262-78. Secondary Works Adams, Henry. H istory o f the United S tates of America During the A dm inistrations o f Jefferso n and Madison. N ew York: S c rib n e r's, 1921. 9 vols. Adams, James Truslow. H istory of the United S ta te s . N ew York: S c rib n e r's, 1933-1934. b vols. Agar, Herbert. The P rice o f Union. Boston: Houghton M ifflin , 1950. Aronson, Sidney H. S tatus and Kinship 1n the Higher Civil Service Standards o f Selection In the Adm inistrations of John Adams, Thomas Jefferso n , and Andrew Jackson. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U niversity P ress, 1964. Babcock, Kendrlc Charles. The Rise of American N atio n ality , 1811-1819, Volume XIII In the American Nation S erie s, A lbert Bushnell H art, ed. N ew York and London: Harper, 1906. Benson, Lee. The Concept of Jacksonian Democracy: N ew York as a Test Casel N ew York: Atheneum, 1967. Binkley, W ilfred E. American P o litic a l P a rtie s, Their Natural H istory. New YorFl Knopf, 1945. . The M an 1n the White House: His Powers and D uties. Baltimore: Johns-Hopklns P ress, 195ft. . President and Congress. 3rd rev. ed. N ew York: Random House, 1962. Bishop, Joseph BuckHn. P resid en tial Nominations and E lectio n s: A History o f /hnerlcan^ConventIons, National Campaigns, Inau gurations, and Campaign C aricature. N ew York: S c rib n e r's, 1 m : --------------- ------------------- Bone, Hugh Alvin. American P o lit i c s and the Party System. N ew York: McGraw-Hill, 1949. Borden, Morton. P arties and P o litic s In the Early Republic, 1789-1815. IT e w YorV:" 'Trowel 1 ,1 9 6 7 .----------- Bowers, Claude G. The P arty B attles of the Jackson Period, Boston: Houghton M ifflin , 1922. Brooks, Robert C. P o litic a l P a rtie s and E lectoral Problems. 3rd ed. N ew York and London: Harper, 1933. Brown, S tu art Gerry. The American Presidency: Leadership, P artisan sh ip , and P opularity. hew York and London: MaanTITan, lf e f. . The F irs t Republicans: P o litic a l Philosophy and Public Policy In the Party o f Jefferso n and Madfson. Syracuse: Syracuse U niversity P ress, 1954. Bruce, Harold Rozelle. American P artie s and P o litic s : H istory and Role o f P o litic a l P a rtie s in the United S tates. N ew York: H olt, 1932.-------------------------------------------------- Burgess, John. The Middle P eriod. 1817-1858. N ew York, Chicago, and Boston: S c rib n e r's, 1906. C a rro ll, E. Malcolm. Origins o f the Whig P arty . G loucester, Mass.: P eter Smith, 1964. Chambers, William N lsbet. P o litic a l P arties In a N ew Nation: The American Experience, 1776-1609. N ew York: Oxford U niversity P ress, 1963. and W alter Dean Burnham, eds. The American Party Systems: Stages o f Development. N ew York, London, and Toronto: Ox ford U niversity P ress, 1967. Channlng, Edward. A H istory of the United S ta te s . N ew York: Macmillan, 1908-193Z. 7 vols. . The Jeffersonian System, 1801-1811. Volume XII 1n the American Nation S e rie s, A lbert Bushnell H art, ed. N ew York and London: Harper, 1906. C harles, Joseph. The Origins o f the American Party System. W1111amsburg: In s titu te o f Early American h isto ry , 1956. Corwin, Edward S. The P resid en t: O ffice and Powers, 1787-1957. N ew York: N ew York U niversity P ress, 1957. C unllffe, Marcus. The Nation Takes Shape, 1789-1837. Chicago: U niversity o f Chicago P ress, 1959. Cunningham, Noble E ., J r . The Jeffersonian Republicans: The Formation o f Party O rganization, 1789-1601. Chapel H ill: U niversity o f North Carolina P ress, 1967. . The Jeffersonian Republicans 1n Power: Party O perations, 1801-1809. Chapel H ill: University of Worth Carolina Press. T 9 5 T . 435 , ed. The Making o f the American Party System, 1789-1809. Englewood C lif fs , N .J.: P ren tlce-H all, 1965. Dal U nger, Frederick William. Nominations fo r E lective O ffice In the United S ta te s . Volume IV In Harvard H isto rical stu d ie s. Cambridge: Harvard U niversity P ress, 1916. D angerfleld, George. The Awakening of Amerlcan Nationalism , 1815- 1828. N ew York, Evanston, ana London: Harper and Row, i9b5. . The Era o f Good Feellnqs. N ew York: H arcourt. Brace, 195?: Dauer, Manning Ju lia n . The Adams F e d e ra lists. Baltimore: Johns- Hopklns P ress, 1953. Farrand, Max. The Framing of the C onstitution o f the United S ta te s . N ew Haven and London: Yale U niversity P ress, 1962. Fischer, David Hackett. The Revolution o f American Conservatism: The F ed eralist Party In the Era o f Jeffersonian Democracy! N ew York: Harper and Now, 1965. F1sh, Carl R ussell. The Development o f American N atio n ality . N ew York, C incinnati, and Chicago: American Book Company, 1913. . The Rise o f the C om m on Man. Volume V I 1n A H istory of American L ife, Arthur M . Schleslnger and Dixon Ryan Fox, eds. N ew York: Macmillan, 1927. Fraser, Hugh Russell. Democracy 1n the Making: The Jackson-Tyler Era. Indlanpolls and N ew York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1938. Gammon, Samuel Rhea, J r . The P resid en tial Campaign o f 1832. Volume X L In the Johns-Hopklns U niversity Studies In H1s- to rlc a l and P o litic a l Science. Baltimore: Johns-Hopklns P ress, 1922. Goodman, Paul. The Democratlc-Republleans of Massachusetts: P o litics In a Young Republic. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964. Goodman, William. The Two-Party System 1n the United S ta te s . P rlnceton: Van Nostrand, 195b. Green, Constance McLaughlin. Washington: V illage and C ap ital, 1800-1878. P rinceton, N.J7: Princeton U niversity P ress, 1962. H art, James. The American Presidency 1n Action, 1789: A Study 436 In C onstitutional H istory. N ew York: Macmillan, 1948. H erring, Edward Pendleton. The P o litic s o f Democracy. N ew York: W . W . Norton, 19?B! H ild reth , Richard. The History of the United S tates o f America N ew York: Harper, 1849-1851. 6 vols. H1nderaker, Ivan Henrik. Party P o litic s . N ew York: H olt, 1956. Hockett, Homer Carey. Western Influence on P o litic a l P arties to 1825: A n Essay 1n H istorical In te rp re ta tio n . Columbus, Ohio: Ohio S tate U niversity P ress, 1917. Hoffman, William S. Andrew Jackson and North Carol1na Pol1t i c s . Chapel H ill, N.CT1 U niversity o f North Carolina P ress, 1958. H ofstadter, Richard. The American P o litic a l T radition and the M en W ho Made I t . N ew York: Random House, 1954. H olst, Hermann Edward von. The C onstitutional and P o litic a l H istory o f the United S ta te s. Trans, by John J . Laior, A lfred B. Mason, and Paul Shorey. Chicago: Callaghan, 1881-1892. 8 vols. Huglns, W alter. Jacksonian Democracy and the Working Class. Stanford, C a lif.: Stanford U niversity P ress, I960. Jensen, M errill. The N ew Nation: A H istory o f the United S tates During the Confederation, 1781-1>89. N ew York: Knopf, 1962. Johnston, Alexander. History o f American P o litic s . 2nd ed. N ew York: H olt, 1886. Kass, Alvin. P o litic s In N ew York S ta te , 1800-1830. N,p: Syracuse U niversity Press, 1965 Kehl, James A. I l l Feeling 1n the Era o f Good Feeling: Western Pennsylvania P o litic a l B a ttle s, 1815-1625. P ittsburgh: U niversity o f Pittsburgh P ress, 1986. K elly, A lfred H. and Winifred Harblson. The American C onstitu tio n : I ts Origins and Development, hev. ed. N ew York: W . W . Norton, 1955, Key, Valdlmer Orlando. P o litic s , P a rtie s , and Pressure Groups N ew York: Crowel 1 ,1 9 1 7 ." K lttle r , Glenn 0. Hall to the Chief: The Inauguration Days of Our P residents! Philadelphia and hew Vork: Chilton Books, m :-------------- 437 Kraus, Michael. The W riting of American H istory. Norman: U niversity o f Oklahoma P ress, 1953. Krout, John A llen. The Completion o f Independence. 1790-1830. Volume V In A H istory o f American L ife, Arthur M . Schleslnger and Dixon Ityan Fox, eds. N ew York: Macmillan, 1927. K lein, P h ilip Shrlver. Pennsylvania P o litic s , 1817-1832: A Game Without Rules. P hiladelphia: H isto rical Society of Pennsylvania, 1940. Kurtz, Stephen G. The Presidency o f John Adams: The Collapse o f Federalism, 1795-1800. P hiladelphia: U niversity of PSh'nsyTvanla Press', 1957. L elserson, Avery. P artie s and P o litic s : A n In stitu tio n a l and Behavioral Approach. N ew York: Knopf, 1958. Link, Eugene Perry. Democratic-Republican S o c ie ties, 1790-1800. New York: Octagon Books, 1965. Livermore, Shaw, J r . The Tw ilight o f federalism : The D isinte g ratio n o f the F ed eralist P arty , 1815-1830. Princeton, N .J.: Princeton U niversity P ress, 1962. Lynch, William 0. F ifty Years o f Party Warfare (1789-1837). Indianapolis: Bobbs-M errlll, 1031. Main, Jackson Turner. The A n ti-F ed e ralists: C ritic s of the C o n stitu tio n , 1781-1788. Chicago: Quadrangle, 1984. McCarthy, Charles. The Antlmasonlc Party: A Study o f P o litic a l Antimasonry In the United s ta te s , 18Z7-1840. Annual Report o f the American H istorical A ssociation. Washington, D.C.: Government P rin tin g O ffice, 1902. Vol. I. McCormick, Richard P. The Second American Party System: Party Fonnatlon In the Jacksonian T riT . Chapel W ill, N.C.: Univer s ity o f North Carolina P ress, 1966. Mason, Alpheus T. and Richard H. Leach. In Quest of Freedom: American P o litic a l Thought and P ractice. Enqlewood C lif f s , N 7JTT- P rentl ce-Hal 1V 1959.----------------- McKee, Thomas Hudson. The National Conventions and Platforms of All P o litic a l P a rtie s , 1789 to l900. 3rd ed. Baltimore: Frfedenwald, 1900. McMaster, John B. History of the People o f the United S ta te s . N ew York: Appleton, 1883-1913. 8 vols. 438 Meyers, Marvin. The Jacksonian Persuasion. Stanford, C a lif.: Stanford U niversity P ress, 1967. M iller, John C. The F ed eralist Era. 1789-1801. N ew York, Evanston and London: Harper and how, 1963. M1nn1gerode, Mende. P resid en tial Years, 1787-1860. N ew York and London: Putnam's Sons, 1928. Morgan, Edmund S. The B irth of the Republic, 1763-1789. Chicago and London: U niversity of Chicago P ress, 1956. Morse, Anson Daniel. P a rtie s and Party Leaders. Boston: Marshall Jones, 1923. Neustadt, Richard E. P resid en tial Power: The P o litic s of Leadership. N ew York and London: John Wiley and Sons, I960. Newsome A lbert R*y. The P resld en tlel Elect1on of 1824 1n North C arolina. Chapel M ill, N.C.: U niversity o f North Carolna P ress, 1939. N ichols, Roy F. The Invention of the American P o litic a l P a rtie s . N ew York: Macmillan, 1967. Odegard, P eter H. and E. Allen Helms. American P o litic s : A Study In P o litic a l Dynamics. 2nd ecT N ew York and London: Harper, 194 l J . O strander, Gilman. The Rights o f M an In America. Columbia, Mo.: U niversity o f Missouri P ress, I960. O strogerskl, Mosel. Democracy and the Organization o f P o litic a l P a rtie s . Trans. by Frederick Clarks. N ew York: Macmillan, 1922. 2 vols. . Democracy a n d th e Party System In the United S ta te s: A Study In E xtra-C onstitutional Government. N ew York: Racmlllan, 19T0. -------------------------- P atterso n , C. Perry. P resid en tial Government In the United S tates. Chapel H ill: U niversity o f North Carolina P ress, m rr Pressen, Edward. Most Uncommon Jacksonian: The Radical Leaders o f the Early Labor Movement. Albany, N.Y.: S tate U niversity o f N ew York P ress, 196?. P etersen, Svend. A S ta tis tic a l H istory of the American Presiden t i a l Election?! N ew York: Frederick Ungar, 1963. 439 P ole, J .R ., ed. The Advance o f Democracy. N ew York, Evanston, and London: Harper and W ow , 1967. P rince, Carl E. N ew Je rse y ’s Jeffersonian Republicans: The Genesis o f an Early Party M achine.1789-1£17. Chapel M ill, 0 7 7 U niversity o f North Carolina P ress, 1967. Ranney, A ustin. The Doctrine of Responsible Party Government: Its O rigins and Present S ta te . Urbanal U niversity of I llin o is , 1965. Rem1n1, Robert V. Andrew Jackson and the Bank War. N ew York: W .W . Norton, 19577 . The E lection of Andrew Jackson. P hiladelphia: L1pp1ncott, 1967: . Martin Van Buren and the Making o f the Democratic P arty . N ew York and London: Columbia University Press, 1959. R lsjord, Norman K. The Old Republicans: Southern Conservatism In the Age o f Je ffe rso n .N e w York and London:Colum bia U niversity P ress, 1965. . The Old Republicans: Southern Conservatives 1n Congress, 1806-1824. Unpublished Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , U niversity of V irginia, 1960. Robinson, Edgar Eugene. The Evolution o f American P o litic a l P a rtie s: A Sketch of Party Development- : New York: H arcourt, Brace, 1924. Rose, L isle A. Prologue to Democracy: The F ed eralists 1n the South, 1789-16007 Lexington, Ky.: U niversity of Kentucky P ress, 1968. Roseboom, Eugene H. A History of Presidential Elections. N ew York: M acm 1llan7Tm ---------- “ ---------------------- S a lt, Edward McChesney. American P arties and E lectio n s. N ew York and London: Century, 1927. Schachner, Nathan. The Founding Fathers. N ew York: Capricorn, 1961 S chleslnger, Arthur M., J r . The Age of Jackson. Boston: L ittle , Brown, 1945. Schouler, James. History of the United S tates of America Under the C onstitution. N ew York: bodd. Mead, 1880-1613. 7 vols. 440 Smelser, M arshall. The Democratic Republic, 1801-181S» N ew York, Evanston, and London: 'fttfp e r and Row, 1963. Stanwood, Edward. H istory of the Presidency. Boston: Houghton M ifflin , 1898-T917." Z r v o fi. Steinberg, A lfred. The F irs t Ten: The Founding Presidents and Their A dm inistrations. Garden C ity, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1967. Stone, Irving. They Also Ran: The Story o f the M en W ho Were Defeated fo r tne Presidency. Garden C ity, N.Y.: Doubleday, m r . ---------------- Sydnor, Charles S. The Development of Southern Sectionalism . 1819-1848. Volume V in A History o f the South, Wendell Holmes Stephenson and E. Merton C oulter, eds. Baton Rouge: Louisiana S tate U niversity P ress, 1948. Thompson, C.S. The Rise and Fall o f the Congressional Caucus. N ew Haven, Conn.: Yale U niversity Press, 1902. Tugwell, Rexford G. H ow They Became P resident: Th1rtv-F1ve Wa^s to the White House. N ew York: Simon and Scnuster, Turner, Frederick Jackson. Rise o f the N ew West, 1819-1829. Volume XIV 1n the American Nation S erie s, A lbert Bushnell H art, ed. N ew York and London: Harper, 1906. . The United S ta te s, 1830-1850: The Nations and Its S ections. G loucester, Mass.: P eter Smith, 1968. Underwood, Oscar W ilder. D rifting Sands of Party P o litic s . N ew York: Century, 19281 U.S. Bureau o f the Census. H istorical S ta tis tic s of the United S ta te s, Colonial Times to IQSfr. Washington, D.C.: Govern ment P rin tin g o ffic e , i960. Van Deusen, Glyndon G. The Jacksonian Era, 1828-1848. N ew York: Harper, 1959. Warren, Sidney. The B attle fo r the Presidency. P hiladelphia: L lpplncott, 1$68. Weston, Florence. The P resid en tial Election o f 1828. Washington: Catholic U niversity of America, 1938. White, Leonard D. The F ed eralists: A Study In A dm inistrative H istory, 1789-1801. N ew York: Free P ress, 1965. 441 —— . The J acksonlans: A Study In A dm inistrative H istory, 1829-1561. N ew York: Free P ress, 1965. . The Je fferso n ian s: A Study In A dm inistrative H istory, 1801-1529. N ew York: Free P ress, 1965. Williamson, C hilton. American Suffrage from Property to Democracy 1760-1860. Princeton, N .J.: Princeton U niversity P ress, m -------- Wilson, Woodrow. Congressional Government: A Study In American P o litic s . Boston and N ew York: Houghton M ifflin , 1925. Woodbum, James A lbert. P o litic a l P a rtie s and Party Problems In the United S ta te s. 3rd ed. N ew York and London: Putnam's Sons, mr. -------- Young, James S te rlin g . The Washington Community, 1800-1828. N ew York: Columbia U niversity P r e s s , 1966. VI. Biographical Works Adams, Henrv. The Life o f A lbert G alla tin . N ew York: P eter Smith, 19471 Adams, James Truslow. The Adams Family. Boston: L ittle , Brown, 1930. . The L1v1nq Jefferso n . N ew York and London: S c rib n e r's, 1976:--------- --------------- Alexander, Holmes Moss. The American Tallyrand: The Career and Contemporaries o f Martin Van Buren, Eighth President N ew York and London: Harper, 1935. Anderson, Dice Robins. William Branch G iles: A Study In the Nation from 1790 to 1530. G loucester, Mass.: P eter Smith, 19'67.------------------- Axelrod, Jacob. P h ilip Freneau: Champion of Democracy. A ustin, Tex.: U niversity o f Yexas P ress, 1967. B ailey, Ralph Edward. A n American Colossus: The Singular Caree r o f Alexander Hamilton*: 60s ton: Lothrop, Lee, and Shepard, 1963. Bancroft, Frederic. The L ife o f William H. Seward. N ew York and London: Harper, 1900. 2 vols. 442 B assett, John Spencer. The L ife of Andrew Jackson. New York: Macmillan, 1928. 2 vols. In 1. Bemls, Samuel Flagg. John Quincy Adams and the Union. New York: Knopf, 195TT . John Qulncv Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy. New York: Knopf, 1949. Bernhard, Winifred E. A. Fisher Ames, F ederalist and Statesman, 1758-1808. Chapel H111, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press for the I n s titu te o f Early American History and Culture, 1965. Boyd, George Adams. Ellas Boudlnot. P a trio t and Statesman, 1740- 1821. Princeton, N .J.: Princeton University Press, 1957! Bowers, Claude G. Jefferson and Hamilton: The Struggle for Democracy 1n America. Boston and New York: Houghton M1ffl1i\ T92T Brant, Irving. James Madison: Father of the C onstitution, 1787- 1800. Indianapolis and New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1950. . James Madison: Secretary of Sta te , 1800-1809. Indianapolis and New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1953. . James Madison: The President, 1809-1812. Indianapolis and New York: Bobbs-Merrl11, 1956. . James Madison: Commander 1n Ch ie f, 1812-1836. Indianapolis and New York: Bobbs-Merrlll, 1961. Bruce, W 1111 am Cabel1. John Randolph of Roanoke, 1773-1833. New York and London! Putnam's, 1922. 2 vols. Brush, Edward Hale. The Life and Times of Rufus King. N ew York: Nicholas Brown, 1926. B uell, Augustus C. History o f Andrew Jackson, Pioneer, P a tr io t, Soldier, P o litic ia n , President. N ew York: Scribner's t o w : 2 voTs. --------------------- Caldwell, Howard Walter. Henry Clay, the Great Compromiser Milwaukee: H.G. Campbell, Chambers, William Nlsbet. Old Bullion Benton, Senator from the New West. Boston and Toronto: L i ttle , Brown, 1956. 443 Chlnard, G ilbert. Honest John Adams. Boston: L i ttle , Brown, 1933. Clark, Bennett Champ. John Quincy Adams, "Old M an Eloquent." Boston: L i ttle , Brown, 1932. C olt, Margaret L. John C. Calhoun. Boston: Houqhton M ifflin, 1950. Colton, Calvin. The Life and Times of Henry Clay. New York: A.S. Barnes, 1$46. 2 vols. Colyar, A.S. Life and Times of Andrew Jackson. Nashville: Marshal 1 and Bruce, 1904. 2 vols. Cresson, William Penn. James ^<wroe. Chapel H111: University of North Carolina Press, 1946. D e W1tt, Cornelius. Jefferson and the American Democracy: A n H istorical Study" Trans, by R.S.H. Church. London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, and Green, 1862. Dangerfield, George. Chancellor Robert R. Livingston of New York, 1746-1813. N ew York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, i960. Dinqledlne, Raymond C., J r. The P o litic a l Career of William Cabell Rives. Unpublished Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , University of V irginia, 1947. Eaton, Clement. Henry Clay and the Art of American P o litic s . Boston: L ittle , Brown, 1957. Ernst, Robert. Rufus King: American Federal 1 s t. Chanel H111, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press for the In s titu te of Early American History and C ulture, 1968. Fuess, Claude Moore. Daniel Webster. Boston: L i ttle , Brown, 1930. 2 vols. Freeman, Douglas Southall. George Washington. New York: S c rib n e r's, 1948-1957. 7 v o ls. Frost, John. A P ictorial Biography of Andrew Jackson. N ew York: Henry B ill, 1861. - Garland, Hugh A. The Life of John Randolph of Roanoke. New York: Appleton, 1859. Gay, Sydney Howard. James Madison. Boston and New York: Houghton M ifflin, 1884. 444 Gilman, Daniel Colt. James Monroe. Boston and New York: Houghton M ifflin , 1895. Goodwin, Philo Ashley. Biography o f Andrew Jackson, President o f the United S ta te s, Formerly M ajo r G eneral In the Army of the United S ta te s. N ew York: fe.H. Towner, 18357 Hacker, Louis M . Alexander Hamilton In the Arerlcan T rad itio n . New York, Toronto, and London: McGraw-Hill, 1957. H arasztl, Zoltan. John Adams and the Prophets of Progress. Cambrldge: Harvard U niversity P ress, 19S2! H olst, Hermann Eduard von. John C. Calhoun. Volume XXII 1n the American Statesmen S eries, John T. Morse, J r . , ed. Boston: Houghton M ifflin , 1888 Hunt, G alllard. John C. Calhoun. Philadelphia: G. W . Jacobs, 1908. . The Life of James Madison. New York: Doubleday, Page, 19W. Irwin, Ray W . Daniel D. Tompkins, Governor of New York and Vice Pres 1 dent of the United States New York: New-York His to ric a l Society, 1968.------------- James, Marquis. The Life of Andrew Jackson. Indianapolis: Bobbs-MerH 11, 1938. Z v o ls. in 1. . The Raven: A Biography of Sam Houston. Indianapolis: BoEbs'-WerrnTy 19297 ----------------------- Jenkins, John S tllw ell. Life and Public Services of General Andrew Jackson. New York: M iller, Orton, and M ulligan, m r .-------------- Johnson, Gerald White. Andrew Jackson, an Epic 1n Homespun. New York: Minton, Balch, 19Z7. K1rk, Russell. Randolph of Roanoke: A Study 1n Conservative Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. Koch, Adrienne. Jefferson and Madison: The Great Collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964. Llpsky, George A. John Quincy Adams, His Theory and Ideas. N ew York: Crowell,1 9 5 0 . Lodge, Henry Cabot. Daniel Webster. Boston and N ew York: Houghton M1ff11n, 1883. 445 Lowery, Charles D . James Barbour, a P o litic ia n and P lanter of Ante-Bellum V irginia. Unpublished Ph.D. D issertatio n , U niversity of V irginia, 1966. Lynch, Denis H ld en . A n Epoch and a Man: Martin Van Buren and His Times. N ew York: L lverlght, 1929. Malone, Dumas. Jefferson and His Time. Boston: L i ttle , Brown, 1948. 2 voir: March, Charles W . Daniel Webster and His Contemporaries. N ew York: Baker and Scribner, 1852. Meigs, William M . The Life of John Caldwell Calhoun. New York: S techert, 1917. 2 vols. M iller, John C. Alexander Hamilton: P o rtra it 1n Paradox. New York: Harper, 1959. M itchell, Broadus. Alexander Hamilton: The National Adventure, 1788-1804. New York: Macmillan, 1962. Morgan, George. The Life of James Monroe. Boston: Small, May nard, 1921. Morlson, Samuel E lio t. Harrison Gray 0t1s, 1765-1848: The Urbane F e d e ra list. Boston: Houohton M ifflin, 1969. Morse, John Torrey, J r . John Adams. Volume VI 1n the American Statesmen S eries, John T. Morse, J r . , ed. Boston: Houghton M ifflin, 1884. . John Qu1ncy Adams. Volume X V 1n the American Statesmen S eries, John T. Morse, J r . , ed. Boston: Houghton M ifflin, 1890. Muzzey, David S av llle. Thomas Jefferson. New York: S crib n er's, 1918. Nock, Albert Jay. Jefferso n . New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1926. Oliver, Frederick Scott. Alexander Hamilton: A n Essay on American Union. New York: Putnam's Sons, 1923. Padover, Saul K. Jefferso n . New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1942. Parmet, Herbert S. and Marie B. Hecht. Aaron Burr: P o rtra it of an Ambitious Man. New York: Macmillan, 1967. Parton, James. General Jackson. New York: Appleton, 1893. . Life of Andrew Jackson. N ew York: M a s o n B r o t h e r s , 1858-18 6 0 .~ T VoTs'.---------- . Life of Thomas Jefferson. Boston: H o u g h - t o n M l f ^ f U n , 1883 Poage, George Rawlins, Henry Clay and the Whig P a r t y - C hapel H111: University of North Carolina P re s s , I $ 3 6 - P re n tis s, Hervey Putnam. Timothy Puckering a s t h e L e a d e r o f New England Federalism , 1800-1815^ S alem , M a s s . : 1 5 3 4 . Quincy, Jo slah . Memoir o f tf e J T f e J ° hn Om * n c y A d a m s . Boston Crosby, N ichols, Lee, 1860. Randall, Henry S. The L ife o f Thomas J e f f e r s o n _ N e w Y o r k : Derby and Jackson, 1858. 3 vols. Rem1n1, Robert V. Andrew Jackson. N ew York: T w e v r v e » 1 9 6 6 . Rives, William C abell. H istory o f the L ife a n d _ ~T 1 m e s o f James Madison. Boston: L i t t l e , Brown, 1859-1& 6>8_ 3 v o l s . Rogers, George C ., J r . Evolution of a F ederal 1 s t : W1 1 1 1 am Louqhton Smith (1758-1812). Columbia , S . t : U n 1 v e r s T ty of south Carolina P ress, 1962. Rogers, Joseph Morgan. The True Henry C lay. P h i l a d e l o h 1a and London: L1po1ncott, 1904. Rossman, Kenneth R. Thomas Mifflin and the P o l 1 t i c s o f t h e American Revolution [Chapel Hill, N.C.] : [ J n T v e r s T t y of North Carolina P ress, 1952. Sargent, Epes. The Life and Public Services o f" H e n r y C l a y Edited and completed by Horace G reeley. A u b u r ~ r » . N . Y . : Derby and Miller, 1853. Schmucker, Samuel M . The Life of Daniel W e b ste r* . N e w Y o rk : A. L. Burt, 1859. . The Life and Times of Alexander H a m ilto n . B o s t o n and Chicago: L. P. Crown, 1857. . The Life and Times of Henry Clay. P h i l a d e l p h i a : Keystone, c. i860. . The Life and Times of Thomas J e f f e r s o n . B o s t o n a n d Chicago: L.P. Crown, 1857. Schurz, Carl. Henry Clay, Volumes X IX and X X 1 n t h e A m e r i c a n Statesmen S e rie s, John T. Morse, J r . , ed. C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, 1899. 2 v o ls. 447 S e lle rs , Charles G., J r . James K. Polk, Jacksonian, 1795-1843. Princeton, N .J.: Princeton University Press, 19i>7. Seward, William H. Life and Public Services of John Quincy Adams, Sixth President of the United S ta te s. Auburn, N.Y.: Derby an'cT Miller," 1849". Shepard, Edward Morse. Martin Van Buren. Volume XVIII 1n the American Statesmen S eries, John T. Morse, J r . , ed. Boston and New York: Houghton M ifflin , 1917. Shipp, J.E.D. Giant Days, or the Life and Times of William H. Crawford. Amerlcus, 6a.: Southern P rin te rs, 1909. Smith, Page. John Adams. Garden C ity, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1962. 2 vols. Smith, William E. The Francis Preston B lair Family 1n P o litic s . New York: Macmillan, 1933. 2 vols. Stephenson, Nathaniel Wright and Waldo Hilary Dunn. George Washington. New York, London and Toronto: Oxford Univer s ity P ress, 1940. 2 vols. Stevens, John Austin. Albert G a lla tin . Volume XIII 1n the American Statesmen S eries, John T. Morse, J r . , ed. Boston: Houghton M ifflin, 1883. Styron, Arthur. The Last of the Cocked Hats: James Monroe and the Virginia Dynasty. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, r n r — Sumner, William Graham. Andrew Jackson. Volume XVII 1n the American Statesmen S eries, John T. Morse, J r . , ed. Boston and New York: Houghton M ifflin , 1917. S y rett, Harold Coffin. Andrew Jackson: His Contributions to the American T radition. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrlll, m r .-------------------------- T efft, B.F. Life of Daniel Webster. Philadelphia: P orter and Coates, 1854. Tucker, George M . The Life of Thomas Jefferso n , Third President o f the United S ta te s . Philadelphia: Carey, Lea, and Blanchard, 1837. T ~vols. Turner, Lynn W . William PIumer of New Hampshire. Chapel H ill, N.C.: University o f North Carolina Press, 1962. Van Deusen, Glyndon G. The Life of Henry Clay, Boston: L ittle , Brown, 1937. 448 . Thurlow Weed, Wizard of the Lobby. Boston: L i t t l e , Brown, 1947. . William Henry Seward. New York: Oxford University Press, 1963: Walsh, Corrsa Maylan. The P o litic a l Science of John Adams: A Study 1n the Theory of Mixed Goyeniment and the Bicameral System. New York and London! Putnam’s Sons, 1915. W a1t e r s , Raymond. Albert G allatin: Jeffersonian Financier and Diplomat. New York: Macmillan, 1967. Wandell, Samuel H. and Meade M1nn1gerode. Aaron Burr. New York and London: Putnam's Sons, 1925. 2 vols. Ward, John Will1am. Andrew Jackson, Symbol fo r an Age. New York: Oxford University Press, ly55. Watson, Thomas E. The Life and Times of Thomas Jefferso n . Rev. ed. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1927. Welch, Richard E ., J r. Theodore Sedgwick, F ederalist: A P o litic a l P o r tra it. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, ts s f: Whltelock, William, The Life and Times of John Jay. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1887: Williams, John Sharp. Thomas Jefferson: His Permanent Influence on American In s titu tio n s . New York: Columbia University P ress, 1913. W1tse, Charles M . John C. Calhoun. Indianapolis and New York: Bobbs-Merri11 , 1944-1951. 3~vols.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Henry A. Wallace: The Origins And Development Of His Political Philosophy, The Agrarian Years 1920-1940

PDF

American Colonial Libertarianism And The Advent Of The Federal Age

PDF

The Americanization Of The English Common Law, 1776-1835

PDF

Alexander Hamilton And The British Orientation Of American Foreign Policy, 1783-1803

PDF

A History Of The Evangelical United Brethren Church In California 1849-1962

PDF

The Contemporary American Family Novel: A Study In Metaphor

PDF

The Political Career Of David C. Broderick

PDF

The Formal Organization Of The Democratic Party At The State Level In California

PDF

An Intensive Rhetorical Analysis Of Selected Speeches Of Robert Maynard Hutchins: 1940-1955

PDF

The United States Army And The Indian: Low Plains Area 1815-1854

PDF

Critical Study Of The Nominating Speeches At The Democratic And Republican National Conventions Of 1960

PDF

William Dean Howells: The Literary Theories In "Criticism And Fiction." Their Application In The Novels Of 1886 And 1887

PDF

Apache, Navaho, And Spaniard: A History Of The Southern Athapaskans And Their Relations With The Spanish Empire, 1540-1698

PDF

Nuclear Weapons And American Strategy, 1945-1953

PDF

John Parker Hale, Constitutional Constructionist And Radical Republican: A Study In Intra-Communicative Conversion And Inter-Communicative Persuasion

PDF

Southern Congressmen And Welfare Policy In The 1960'S: A Case Study Of Redistributive Politics

PDF

The Public Definition Of A Social Movement: Women'S Liberation

PDF

Josiah Strong. (Writer In American History)

PDF

A Critical Examination Of The Mystical Idealism Of Rufus Matthew Jones

PDF

The Metonymous World Of The Child In Stephen Crane'S 'Whilomville Stories'

Asset Metadata

Creator Morgan, William Graham (author)

Core Title Presidential Nominations In The Federal Era, 1788-1828

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program History

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag History, modern,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Caldwell, Russell Leon (committee chair), Kooker, Arthur R. (committee member), Krinsky, Fred (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-458942

Unique identifier UC11362176

Identifier 7112404.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-458942 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7112404.pdf

Dmrecord 458942

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Morgan, William Graham

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA