American History: Week 4

Instructions to Meriwether Lewis

Commentary on Instructions to Meriwether Lewis Even before the U.S. acquired the Louisiana Territory, President Jefferson empowered his secretary Meriwether Lewis to undertake an extensive exploration of the region. To forestall objections from those who might point out that this territory did not belong to the United States, Jefferson claimed the trip was simply to advance foreign trade. The fur trade was on Jefferson's mind, as his letter to Meriwether Lewis indicates, for he instructs Lewis to note the potential profitably of new trading routes. Thus, the expedition was to attempt to reach the Pacific Ocean by way of the Missouri and other rivers. However, these instructions from President Jefferson to Lewis reveal that Jefferson had even more ambitious and specific goals in mind. Lewis was to make detailed celestial, geographical, botanical, and other scientific notes. He was also to observe closely any indigenous peoples or nations and secure their friendship with the U.S. Lewis unofficially made William Clark his co-leader of the expedition, which departed in 1804 and returned two years later. By any measure the trip was an unqualified success. Jefferson's instructions were carried out virtually to the letter. The Lewis and Clark expedition incalculably influenced the history of the West. Instructions to Meriwether Lewis, by Thomas Jefferson To Meriwether Lewis, esquire, Captain of the 1st regiment of infantry of the United States of America: Your situation as Secretary of the President of the United States has made you acquainted with the objects of my confidential message of Jan. 18, 1803, to the legislature. You have seen the act they passed, which, tho' expressed in general terms, was meant to sanction those objects, and you are appointed to carry them into execution. Instruments for ascertaining by celestial observations the geography of the country thro' which you will pass, have already been provided. light articles for barter, & presents among the Indians, arms for your attendants, say for from 10 to 12 men, boats, tents, & other travelling apparatus, with ammunition, medicine, surgical instruments & provisions you will have prepared with such aids as the Secretary at War can yield in his department; & from him also you will receive authority to engage among our troops, by voluntary agreement, the number of attendants above mentioned, over whom you, as their commanding officer are invested with all the powers the laws give in such a case. As your movements while within the limits of the U. S. will be better directed by occasional communications, adapted to circumstances as they arise, they will not be noticed here. what follows will respect your proceedings after your departure from the U. S. Your mission has been communicated to the Ministers here from France, Spain & Great Britain, and through them to their governments: and such assurances given them as to it's objects as we trust will satisfy them. the country of Louisiana having been ceded by Spain to France, the passport you have from the Minister of France, the representative of the present soverign of the country, will be a protection with all it's subjects: And that from the Minister of England will entitle you to the friendly aid of any traders of that allegiance with whom you may happen to meet. The object of your mission is to explore the Missouri river, & such principal stream of it, as, by it's course & communication with the waters of the Pacific Ocean, may offer the most direct & practicable water communication across this continent, for the purposes of commerce. Beginning at the mouth of the Missouri, you will take observations of latitude & longitude, at all remarkable points on the river, & especially at the mouths of rivers, at rapids, at islands & other places & objects distinguished by such natural marks & characters of a durable kind, as that they may with certainty be recognized hereafter. the courses of the river between these points of observation may be supplied by the compass, the log-line & by time, corrected by the observations themselves. the variations of the compass too, in different places, should be noticed. The interesting points of portage between the heads of the Missouri & the water offering the best communication with the Pacific Ocean should also be fixed by observation, & the course of that water to the ocean, in the same manner as that of the Missouri. Your observations are to be taken with great pains & accuracy, to be entered distinctly, & intelligibly for others as well as yourself, to comprehend all the elements necessary, with the aid of the usual tables, to fix the latitude and longitude of the places at which they were taken, & are to be rendered to the war office, for the purpose of having the calculations made concurrently by proper persons within the U.S. several copies of these, as well as your other notes, should be made at leisure times & put into the care of the most trustworthy of your attendants, to guard by mutiplying them, against the accidental losses to which they will be exposed. a further guard would be that one of these copies be written on the paper of the birch, as less liable to injury from damp than common paper. The commerce which may be carried on with the people inhabiting the line you will pursue, renders a knolege of these people important. you will therefore endeavor to make yourself acquainted, as far as a diligent pursuit of your journey shall admit, with the names of the nations & their numbers; the extent & limits of their possessions; their relations with other tribes or nations; their language, traditions, monuments; their ordinary occupations in agriculture, fishing, hunting, war, arts, & the implements for these; their food, clothing, & domestic accomodations; the diseases prevalent among them, & the remedies they use; moral & physical circumstances which distinguish them from the tribes we know; peculiarities in their laws, customs dispositions; and articles of commerce they may need or furnish, & to what extent. And considering the interest which every nation has in extending & strengthening the authority of reason & justice among the people around them, it will be useful to acquire what knolege you can of the state of morality, religion & information among them, as it may better enable those who endeavor to civilize & instruct them, to adapt their measures to the existing notions & practises of those on whom they are to operate. Other object worthy of notice will be the soil & face of the country, it's growth & vegetable productions; especially those not of the U. S. the animals of the country generally, & especially those not known in the U. S. the remains and accounts of any which may deemed rare or extinct; the mineral productions of every kind; but more particularly metals, limestone, pit coal & salpetre; salines & mineral waters, noting the temperature of the last, & such circumstances as may indicate their character. Volcanic appearances. climate as characterized by the thermometer, by the proportion of rainy, cloudy & clear days, by lightening, hail, snow, ice, by the access & recess of frost, by the winds prevailing at different seasons, the dates at which particular plants put forth or lose their flowers, or leaf, times of appearance of particular birds, reptiles or insects. Altho' your route will be along the channel of the Missouri, yet you will endeavor to inform yourself, by inquiry, of the character & extent of the country watered by it's branches, & especially on it's southern side. the North river or Rio Bravo which runs into the gulph of Mexico, and the North river, or Rio colorado, which runs into the gulph of California, are understood to be the principal streams heading opposite to the waters of the Missouri, and running Southwardly. whether the dividing grounds between the Missouri & them are mountains or flatlands, what are their distance from the Missouri, the character of the intermediate country, & the people inhabiting it, are worthy of particular enquiry. The Northern waters of the Missouri are less to be enquired after, because they have been ascertained to a considerable degree, and are still in a course of ascertainment by English traders & travellers. but if you can learn anything certain of the most Northern source of the Missisipi, & of it's position relative to the lake of the woods, it will be interesting to us. some account too of the path of the Canadian traders from the Missisipi, at the mouth of the Ouisconsin river, to where it strikes the Missouri and of the soil & rivers in it's course, is desireable. In all your intercourse with the natives treat them in the most friendly & conciliatory manner which their own conduct will admit; allay all jealousies as to the object of your journey, satisfy them of it's innocence, make them acquainted with the position, extent, character, peaceable & commercial dispositions of the U. S. of our wish to be neighborly, friendly & useful to them, & of our dispositions to a commercial intercourse with them; confer with them on the points most convenient as mutual emporiums, & the articles of most desireable interchange for them & us. if a few of their influential chiefs, within practicable distance, wish to visit us, arrange such a visit with them, and furnish them with authority to call on our officers, on their entering the U. S. to have them conveyed to this place at public expence. if any of them should wish to have some of their young people brought up with us, & taught such arts as may be useful to them, we will receive, instruct & take care of them. such a mission, whether of influential chiefs, or of young people, would give some security to your own party. carry with you some matter of the kinepox, inform those of them with whom you may be of it' efficacy as a preservative from the small-pox; and instruct & incourage them in the use of it. this may be especially done wherever you winter. As it is impossible for us to foresee in what manner you will be recieved by those people, whether with hospitality or hostility, so is it impossible to prescribe the exact degree of perseverance with which you are to pursue your journey. we value too much the lives of citizens to offer them to probably destruction. your numbers will be sufficient to secure you against the unauthorised opposition of individuals, or of small parties: but if a superior force, authorised or not authorised, by a nation, should be arrayed against your further passage, & inflexibly determined to arrest it, you must decline it's further pursuit, and return. in the loss of yourselves, we should lose also the information you will have acquired. by returning safely with that, you may enable us to renew the essay with better calculated means. to your own discretion therefore must be left the degree of danger you may risk, & the point at which you should decline, only saying we wish you to err on the side of your safety, & bring back your party safe, even if it be with less information. As far up the Missouri as the white settlements extend, an intercourse will probably be found to exist between them and the Spanish posts at St. Louis, opposite Cahokia, or Ste. Genevieve opposite Kaskaskia, from still farther up the river, the traders may furnish a conveyance for letters. beyond that you may perhaps be able to engage Indians to bring letters for the government to Cahokia or Kaskaskia, on promising that they shall there receive such special compensation as you shall have stipulated with them. avail yourself of these means to communicate to us, at seasonable intervals, a copy of your journal, notes & observations of every kind, putting into cypher whatever might do injury if betrayed. Should you reach the Pacific ocean inform yourself of the circumstances which may decide whether the furs of those parts may not be collected as advantageously at the head of the Missouri (convenient as is supposed to the waters of the Colorado & Oregon or Columbia) as at Nootka sound or any other point of that coast; & that trade be consequently conducted through the Missouri & U. S. more beneficially than by the circumnavigation now practised. On your arrival on that coast endeavor to learn if there be any port within your reach frequented by the sea-vessels of any nation, and to send two of your trusty people back by sea, in such way as shall appear practicable, with a copy of your notes. and should you be of opinion that the return of your party by the way they went will be eminently dangerous, then ship the whole, & return by sea by way of Cape Horn or the Cape of good Hope, as you shall be able. as you will be without money, clothes or provisions, you must endeavor to use the credit of the U. S. to obtain them; for which purpose open letters of credit shall be furnished you authorising you to draw on the Executive of the U. S. or any of its officers in any part of the world, on which drafts can be disposed of, and to apply with our recommendations to the Consuls, agents, merchants, or citizens of any nation with which we have intercourse, assuring them in our name that any aids they may furnish you, shall honorably repaid, and on demand. Our consuls Thomas Howes at Batavia in Java, William Buchanan on the isles of France and Bourbon, & John Elmslie at the Cape of good hope will be able to supply your necessities by draughts on us. Should you find it safe to return by the way you go, after sending two of your party round by sea, or with your whole party, if no conveyance by sea can be found, do so; making such observations on your return as may serve to supply, correct or confirm those made on your outward journey. In re-entering the U. S. and reaching a place of safety, discharge any of your attendants who may desire & deserve it, procuring for them immediate paiment of all arrears of pay & cloathing which may have incurred since their departure; & assure them that they shall be recommended to the liberality of the legislature for the grant of a soldier's portion of land each, as proposed in my message to Congress & repair yourself with your papers to the seat of government. To provide, on the accident of your death, against anarchy, dispersion & the consequent danger to your party, and total failure of the enterprise, you are hereby authorised, by any instrument signed & written in your hand, to name the person among them who shall succeed to the command on your decease, & by like instruments to change the nomination from time to time, as further experience of the characters accompanying you shall point out superior fitness; and all the powers & authorities given to yourself are, in the event of your death, transferred to & vested in the successor so named, with further power to him, & his successors in like manner to name each his successor, who, on the death of his predecessor, shall be invested with all the powers & authorities given to yourself.

Letter to President Andrew Jackson

Commentary on Letter to President Andrew Jackson One of the major precipitating causes of the Indian-removal crisis was the discovery of gold in the Cherokee Nation in 1829. Immediately, White prospectors and settlers began to move into Cherokee territory in search of the precious metal. Georgia took the opportunity to assert jurisdiction over the area. In September of that year, the Cherokee National Council authorized Major Ridge to raise a contingent of light-horse patrol and remove eighteen White families living on unauthorized farms in the southeast corner of the Cherokee Nation. In January 1830, Ridge and thirty other Cherokees rode to Beaver Dam and evicted the intruders. Later the Whites returned and beat four Cherokees who had remained behind, killing one. George Gilmer, the governor of Georgia, who as a member of Congress had advocated removal of the Cherokee as early as 1822, wrote to President Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) on June 17, demanding that the federal government retaliate against the Indians. In the letter, excerpted here, the governor claims that he is basically powerless in the situation and asks Jackson to "direct the officers commanding the United States troops to prevent intrusion upon the property of the State by the Indians." Georgia's "property" to which he refers was within the treaty bounds of the Cherokee Nation. Gilmer and other politicians of the period continued to characterize the so-called Five Civilized Tribes (the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole) as "savages" and "hunters," despite their relative cultural assimilation. Such rhetoric helped make removal a more palatable option. Excerpt of letter from Gov. George R. Gilmer of Georgia to President Andrew Jackson, June 17, 1830 Gold In The Cherokee Nation. The gold region is situated very near the thickly inhabited part of the frontier part of the State. . . Since the discovery of gold in the Cherokee country, the opinion very generally prevailed that those who engaged in digging for it violated no right except that of the State; and that, after the passage of the law extending the jurisdiction of the State over that country, the Government of the United States would have no authority to enforce the non-intercourse law. What effect the proclamation, prohibiting all persons, both Indians and whites, from digging gold, may have in allaying the excitement among the persons who have been removed as intruders, is very uncertain. It is probable that it may prevent an immediate attack upon the Indians so employed, from the expectation that they will be restrained by the authority of the State. I shall be compelled to resort to the tedious process of the courts for this purpose, the laws of the State not having invested the governor with the power to protect the public property by military force. In the meantime, it is very desirable that the President would direct the officers commanding the United States troops to prevent intrusion upon the property of the State by the Indians, at the same time defending the occupant rights of the Indians from intrusion by the whites.

Memorial of the Creek Indians to President Andrew Jackson

Commentary on Memorial of the Creek Indians to President Andrew Jackson Although the major removals of the so-called Five Civilized Tribes (the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole) did not occur until the 1830s, some members of these nations had begun to immigrate to Arkansas and other lands west of the Mississippi River, for various reasons, as early as the late 18th century. These persons and their descendants became known as the "Old Settlers." In this document, dated October 29, 1831, the Old Settler Creeks send a message to President Andrew Jackson (1767-1845). Speaking on their own behalf, as well as that of similarly situated Cherokees and Osages (a Plains Indian tribe that inhabited what is now northeastern Oklahoma and the state of Missouri), the Creeks complain that although they want to live a peaceful, civilized existence, they are being harassed by the Comanche, another Plains people. They request that Jackson appoint commissioners to deal with the various tribes in order to secure the peace. Notice that the memorial employs the characteristic self-abasing language used by Indian writers of the period in order to get a hearing from those in power. They call Jackson "Father" and refer to themselves as his "red children." Memorial of the Creek Nation to President Andrew Jackson Father (President Jackson): We, the chiefs and head warriors of the Creek Nation, west of Arkansas Territory, having met in council for the purpose of taking into consideration such measures as might add to the happiness and security of our Nation, have concluded to send you this our talk, which we hope you will communicate to the great council of the United States Government, when they meet at Washington City, in December next. Father: When we removed from the land of our forefathers agreeably to our treaty with the Government of the United States, we left behind us the bones of those whose memory we held most sacred; the scenes of our youth are still dear to us, and causes us to regret that stern necessity and misfortune has driven us into this western wilderness. We, however, trust to the vigorous support and protection of the Government of the United States, as was promised in our treaty, and we rely upon the sympathetic feelings of our white brothers in supporting us, when we only ask what is just. We knew we were coming to a land of strangers, and that our intended neighbors were red brothers who had not received the advantages of civilization as we, and the rest of your red children who had resided east of the Mississippi. These wild Indians depend almost altogether upon the chase for support, and their glory is war. We are anxious to pursue a different course. Our object is to cultivate the land, to support our families by our industry, and to preserve peace not only with our white, but with our red brothers. We are, however subject to depredations from small bands of those Indians (Comanches) who live on our southern and western frontier, which keeps us in continual alarm for the safety of our people, more particularly our women and children. These small bands generally make their attacks at night, and before the alarm can be given their escape is almost certain as they are so well acquainted with the country. Father: Our object in making this appeal to you is, that we hope you will recommend to Congress to appoint commissioners, with the power of making selections of deputations from different tribes west of the Mississippi, to hold a general council with the view of making such arrangements, as that peace may hereafter be preserved amongst the different tribes; and as we are convinced that the success of such an understanding depends much upon the selection of those who are to compose the commission, we do anxiously recommend our friend, Colonel Auguste P. Choteau, of St. Louis, Missouri, to be one of the commissioners, as we have full confidence in his integrity and knowledge of the tribes, language, manners, customs, &c., which qualify him in a superior manner for so responsible a duty. Father, this, as far as we have been able to ascertain, is the general wish of the Creeks, Cherokees, and Osages, and we hope you will listen to the voice of your red children. Witness our hands and seals in council, this twenty-ninth day of October, 1831. Roley McIntosh, his x mark Chilly McIntosh, " x " Fusby Hatchee Micco," x " Cowarcutchee Emarthla, " x " Hothlepoir Tustenaggee," x " Spohoki Harjo," x " Hospetark Harjo, " x " Ista Caharer Micco, Hillabee Tustenaggee, " x " Samuel Perryman, " x " Tuckabatihee, " x " Istacharco Harjo," x " Holtata Thlouo, " x " Co. Emarthla, " x " Coosa Yahola, " x " Tus Kenehaw, " x " Tom Stedhan, " x " Sacota Tustenaggee, " x " Nocosee Tustenaggee," x "

The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition

Commentary on The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition The expedition of Meriwether Lewis (1774-1809) and William Clark (1770-1838), which took place from 1804 to 1806, was one of the most significant explorations into western lands hitherto known only to Native Americans. During that trip—undertaken at the direction of President Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) to explore part of the Louisiana Purchase of 1803—Lewis and Clark, and their Corps of Discovery, traveled roughly 8,000 miles round-trip without engaging in a single major hostile action with Indians. (This is not to say that they were pacifists. Clark, for example, already had experience as an Indian fighter, having fought at the Battle of Fallen Timbers in 1794 and participated in other frontier battles.) Along their route, which took them from St. Louis, Missouri, to the mouth of the Columbia River (on the border between present-day Oregon and Washington) and back, Lewis and Clark made careful and extensive observations of both the vast new territory through which they traveled and the delicate natural specimens that they found. They encountered numerous Indian tribes that had had little or no contact with Whites before. This selection covers the period from November through December 1804. Later, they were joined by one of the best-known members of their party, Sacajawea (1786?-1812), a Shoshone woman who served as their guide. She was a teenager when she joined the expedition. After having been captured in 1800 by an opposing tribe, the Hidatsa, she was sold to a French-Canadian trapper named Toussaint Charbonneau, whom she married by Indian rites in 1804. Along the route, she bore their first child. Like the Powhatan woman Pocahontas (c. 1595-1617), who is said to have rescued Captain John Smith in Virginia, Sacajawea is always presented in a positive light. Both women have become icons of the "good Indian"—helpful, friendly, and often female. Such icons distort reality, however, and invariably disregard human particularities. Sacajawea's people, the Shoshone, lived in Montana. When she was reunited with them in 1805, she left the Lewis and Clark expedition. Excerpt from History of the Exploration of Lewis and Clark, edited by John B. McMaster Lewis And Clark Penetrate The West The reader needs little introduction to the expedition of Lewis and Clark, one of the great and successful explorations in the history of the North American continent. Part of its attractiveness lies in the hugeness of the design; the other part in the fact that it was relatively bloodless. The expedition was clearly political and economic in motive: Jefferson wanted to find out what he had bought from Napoleon. Despite this typically utilitarian basis, it is true that these white observers were more acute, less blind than most of their predecessors, and the entries in these journals constitute one of the supremely valuable sources of information on the Plains tribes, those of the Great Basin, and those of the Far West. As we find them here they are living as yet barely contaminated existences, but they are soon to be transformed, in part because of these very white men who saw them, wrote about them, and in so doing (as Henry Nash Smith has said) transformed the West from myth to reality. This excerpt from Chapter 5 picks up the party in November of 1804. Tuesday 13. We this morning unloaded the boat and stowed away the contents in a storehouse which we have built. At half-past ten ice began to float down the river for the first time: in the course of the morning we were visited by the Black Cat, Poscapsahe, who brought an Assiniboin chief and seven warriors to see us. This man, whose name is Chechawk, is a chief of one out of three bands of Assiniboins who wander over the plains between the Missouri and Assiniboin during the summer, and in the winter carry the spoils of their hunting to the traders on the Assiniboin River, and occasionally come to this place: the whole three bands consist of about eight hundred men. We gave him a twist of tobacco to smoke with his people, and a gold cord for himself: the Sioux also asked for whisky, which we refused to give them. It snowed all day and the air was very cold. Wednesday 14. The river rose last night half an inch, and is now filled with floating ice. This morning was cloudy with some snow: about seventy lodges of Assiniboins and some Knistenaux are at the Mandan village, and this being the day of adoption and exchange of property between them all, it is accompanied by a dance, which prevents our seeing more than two Indians today: these Knistenaux are a band of Chippeways, whose language they speak; they live on the Assiniboin and Saskashawan rivers, and are about two hundred and forty men. We sent a man down on horseback to see what had become of our hunters, and as we apprehend a failure of provisions we have recourse to our pork this evening. Two Frenchmen who had been below returned with twenty beaver which they had caught in traps. Thursday 15. The morning again cloudy, and the ice running thicker than yesterday, the wind variable. The man came back with information that our hunters were about thirty miles below, and we immediately sent an order to them to make their way through the floating ice, to assist them in which we sent some tin for the bow of the periogue and a towrope. The ceremony of yesterday seems to continue still, for we were not visited by a single Indian. The swan are still passing to the south. Friday 16. We had a very hard white frost this morning, the trees are all covered with ice, and the weather cloudy. The men this day moved into the huts, although they are not finished. In the evening some horses were sent down to the woods near us in order to prevent their being stolen by the Assiniboins, with whom some difficulty is now apprehended. An Indian came down with four buffalo robes and some corn, which he offered for a pistol, but was refused. Saturday, November 17. Last night was very cold, and the ice in the river today is thicker than hitherto. We are totally occupied with our huts, but received visits from several Indians. Sunday, November 18. Today we had a cold windy morning; the Black Cat came to see us, and occupied us for a long time with questions on the usages of our country. He mentioned that a council had been held yesterday to deliberate on the state of their affairs. It seems that not long ago, a party of Sioux fell in with some horses belonging to the Minnetarees, and carried them off; but in their flight they were met by some Assiniboins, who killed the Sioux and kept the horses: a Frenchman too, who had lived many years among the Mandans, was lately killed on his route to the British factory on the Assiniboin; some smaller differences existed between the two nations, all of which being discussed, the council decided that they would not resent the recent insults from the Assiniboins and Knistenaux, until they had seen whether we had deceived them or not in our promises of furnishing them with arms and ammunition. They had been disappointed in their hopes of receiving them from Mr. Evans and were afraid that we too, like him, might tell them what was not true. We advised them to continue at peace, that supplies of every kind would no doubt arrive for them, but that time was necessary to organize the trade. The fact is that the Assiniboins treat the Mandans as the Sioux do the Ricaras; by their vicinity to the British they get all the supplies, which they withhold or give at pleasure to the remoter Indians: the consequence is, that however badly treated, the Mandans and Ricaras are very slow to retaliate lest they should lose their trade altogether. Monday 19. The ice continues to float in the river, the wind high from the northwest, and the weather cold. Our hunters arrived from their excursion below, and bring a very fine supply of thirty-two deer, eleven elk, and five buffalo, all of which was hung in a smokehouse. Tuesday 20. We this day moved into our huts which are now completed. This place, which we call Fort Mandan, is situated in a point of low ground, on the north side of the Missouri, covered with tall and heavy cotton wood. The works consist of two rows of huts or sheds, forming an angle where they joined each other; each row containing four rooms, of fourteen feet square and seven feet high, with plank ceiling, and the roof slanting so as to form a loft above the rooms, the highest part of which is eighteen feet from the ground: the backs of the huts formed a wall of that height, and opposite the angle the place of the wall was supplied by picketing: in the area were two rooms for stores and provisions. The latitude by observation is 4 degrees 21'47", and the computed distance from the mouth of the Missouri sixteen hundred miles. In the course of the day several Indians came down to partake of our fresh meat; among the rest, three chiefs of the second Mandan village. They inform us that the Sioux on the Missouri above the Chayenne River threaten to attack them this winter; that these Sioux are much irritated at the Ricaras for having made peace through our means with the Mandans, and have lately ill-treated three Ricaras who carried the pipe of peace to them, by beating them and taking away their horses. We gave them assurances that we would protect them from all their enemies. November 21. The weather was this day fine: the river clear of ice and rising a little: we are now settled in our new winter habitation, and shall wait with much anxiety the first return of spring to continue our journey. The villages near which we are established are five in number, and are the residence of three distinct nations; the Mandans, the Ahnahaways, and the Minnetarees. The history of the Mandans, as we received it from our interpreters and from the chiefs themselves, and as it is attested by existing monuments, illustrates more than that of any other nation the unsteady movements and the tottering fortunes of the American nations. Within the recollection of living witnesses, the Mandans were settled forty years ago in nine villages, the ruins of which we passed about eighty miles below, and situated seven on the west and two on the east side of the Missouri. The two, finding themselves wasting away before the smallpox and the Sioux, united into one village, and moved up the river opposite to the Ricaras. The same causes reduced the remaining seven to five villages, till at length they emigrated in a body to the Ricara nation, where they formed themselves into two villages, and joined those of their countrymen who had gone before them. In their new residence they were still insecure, and at length the three villages ascended the Missouri to their present position. The two who had emigrated together still settled in the two villages on the northwest side of the Missouri, while the single village took a position on the southeast side. In this situation they were found by those who visited them in 1796; since which the two villages have united into one. They are now in two villages, one on the southeast of the Missouri, the other on the opposite side, and at the distance of three miles across. The first, in an open plain, contains about forty or fifty lodges, built in the same way as those of the Ricaras: the second, the same number, and both may raise about three hundred and fifty men. On the same side of the river, and at the distance of four miles from the lower Mandan village, is another called Mahaha. It is situated in a high plain at the mouth of Knife River, and is the residence of the Ahnahaways. This nation, whose name indicates that they were "people whose village is on a hill," formerly resided on the Missouri, about thirty miles below where they now live. The Assiniboins and Sioux forced them to a spot five miles higher, where the greatest part of them were put to death, and the rest emigrated to their present situation, in order to obtain an asylum near the Minnetarees. They are called by the French, Soulier Noir or Shoe Indians; by the Mandans, Wattasoons, and their whole force is about fifty men. On the south side of the same Knife River, half a mile above the Mahaha and in the same open plain with it, is a village of Minnetarees surnamed Metaharta, who are about one hundred and fifty men in number. On the opposite side of Knife River, and one and a half miles above this village is a second of Minnetarees, who may be considered as the proper Minnetaree nation. It is situated in a beautiful low plain, and contains four hundred and fifty warriors. The accounts which we received of the Minnetarees were contradictory. The Mandans say that this people came out of the water to the east, and settled near them in their former establishment in nine villages; that they were very numerous, and fixed themselves in one village on the southern side of the Missouri. A quarrel about a buffalo divided the nation, of which two bands went into the plains, and were known by the name of Crow and Paunch Indians, and the rest moved to their present establishment. The Minnetarees proper assert, on the contrary, that they grew where they now live, and will never emigrate from the spot; the great spirit having declared that if they moved they would all die. They also say that the Minnetarees Metaharta, that is, Minnetarees of the Willows, whose language with very little variation is their own, came many years ago from the plains and settled near them, and perhaps the two traditions may be reconciled by the natural presumption that these Minnetarees were the tribe known to the Mandans below, and that they ascended the river for the purpose of rejoining the Minnetarees proper. These Minnetarees are part of the great nation called Fall Indians, who occupy the intermediate country between the Missouri and the Saskaskawan, and who are known by the name of Minnetarees of the Missouri, and Minnetarees of Fort de Prairie; that is, residing near or rather frequenting the establishment in the prairie on the Saskaskawan. These Minnetarees indeed told us that they had relations on the Saskaskawan, whom they had never known till they met them in war, and having engaged in the night were astonished at discovering that they were fighting with men who spoke their own language. The name of Grosventres, or Bigbellies, is given to these Minnetarees, as well as to all the Fall Indians. The inhabitants of these five villages, all of which are within the distance of six miles, live in harmony with each other. The Ahnahaways understand in part the language of the Minnetarees: the dialect of the Mandans differs widely from both; but their long residence together has insensibly blended their manners, and occasioned some approximation in language, particularly as to objects of daily occurrence and obvious to the senses. November 22. The morning was fine, and the day warm. We purchased from the Mandans a quantity of corn of a mixed color, which they dug up in ears from holes made near the front of their lodges, in which it is buried during the winter: this morning the sentinel informed us that an Indian was about to kill his wife near the fort; we went down to the house of our interpreter where we found the parties, and after forbidding any violence, inquired into the cause of his intending to commit such an atrocity. It appeared that some days ago a quarrel had taken place between him and his wife, in consequence of which she had taken refuge in the house where the two squaws of our interpreter lived: by running away she forfeited her life, which might have been lawfully taken by the husband. About two days ago she had returned to the village, but the same evening came back to the fort much beaten and stabbed in three places, and the husband now came for the purpose of completing his revenge. He observed that he had lent her to one of our sergeants for a night, and that if he wanted her he would give her to him altogether: we gave him a few presents and tried to persuade him to take his wife home; the grand chief too happened to arrive at the same moment, and reproached him with his violence, till at length they went off together, but by no means in a state of much apparent love. November 23. Again we had a fair and warm day, with the wind from the southeast: the river is now at a stand having risen four inches in the whole. November 25. The wind continued from the same quarter and the weather was warm: we were occupied in finishing our huts and making a large rope of elk-skin to draw our boat on the bank. Sunday, November 25. The weather is still fine, warm and pleasant, and the river falls one inch and a half. Captain Lewis went on an excursion to the villages accompanied by eight men. A Minnetaree chief, the first who has visited us, came down to the fort: his name was Waukerassa, but as both the interpreters had gone with Captain Lewis we were obliged to confine our civilities to some presents with which he was much pleased: we now completed our huts, and fortunately too, for the next day. Monday, November 26. Before daylight the wind shifted to the northwest, and blew very hard, with cloudy weather and a keen cold air, which confined us much and prevented us from working: the night continued very cold, and, Tuesday 27. The weather cloudy, the wind continuing from the northwest and the river crowded with floating ice. Captain Lewis returned with two chiefs, Mahnotah, an Ahnahaway, and Minnessurraree, a Minnetaree, and a third warrior: they explained to us that the reason of their not having come to see us was that the Mandans had told them that we meant to combine with the Sioux and cut them off in the course of the winter: a suspicion increased by the strength of the fort, and the circumstance of our interpreters having been removed there with their families: these reports we did not fail to disprove to their entire satisfaction, and amused them by every attention, particularly by the dancing of the men, which diverted them highly. All the Indians whom Captain Lewis had visited were very well disposed, and received him with great kindness, except a principal chief of one of the upper villages, named Mahpahpaparapassatoo or Horned Weasel, who made use of the civilized indecorum of refusing to be seen, and when Captain Lewis called he was told the chief was not at home. In the course of the day seven of the northwest company's traders arrived from the Assiniboin River, and, one of their interpreters having undertaken to circulate among the Indians unfavorable reports, it became necessary to warn them of the consequences if they did not desist from such proceedings. The river fell two inches today and the weather became very cold. Wednesday 28. About eight o'clock last evening it began to snow and continued till daybreak, after which it ceased till seven o'clock, but then resumed and continued during the day, the weather being cold and the river full of floating ice: about eight o'clock Poscopsahe came down to visit us, with some warriors; we gave them presents and entertained them with all that might amuse their curiosity, and at parting we told them that we had heard of the British trader, Mr. Laroche, having attempted to distribute medals and flags among them, but that those emblems could not be received from any other than the American nation without incurring the displeasure of their great father the president. They left us much pleased with their treatment. The river fell one inch today. Thursday 29. The wind is again from the northwest, the weather cold, and the snow which fell yesterday and last night is thirteen inches in depth. The river closed during the night at the village above, and fell two feet; but this afternoon it began to rise a little. Mr. Laroche, the principal of the seven traders, came with one of his men to see us; we told him that we should not permit him to give medals and flags to the Indians; he declared that he had no such intention, and we then suffered him to make use of one of our interpreters, on his stipulating not to touch any subject but that of his traffic with them. An unfortunate accident occurred to Sergeant Pryor, who in taking down the boat's mast dislocated his shoulder, nor was it till after four trials that we replaced it. Friday 30. About eight o'clock an Indian came to the opposite bank of the river, calling out that he had something important to communicate, and on sending for him, he told us that five Mandans had been met about eight leagues to the southwest by a party of Sioux, who had killed one of them, wounded two, and taken nine horses; that four of the Wattasoons were missing, and that the Mandans expected an attack. We thought this an excellent opportunity to discountenance the injurious reports against us, and to fix the wavering confidence of the nation. Captain Clark therefore instantly crossed the river with twenty-three men strongly armed, and circling the town approached it from behind. His unexpected appearance surprised and alarmed the chiefs, who came out to meet him, and conducted him to the village. He then told them that having heard of the outrage just committed, he had come to assist his dutiful children; that if they would assemble their warriors and those of the nation, he would lead them against the Sioux and avenge the blood of their countrymen. After some minutes conversation, Oheenaw the Chayenne arose: "We now see," said he, "that what you have told us is true, since as soon as our enemies threaten to attack us you come to protect us and are ready to chastise those who have spilled our blood. We did indeed listen to your good talk, for when you told us that the other nations were inclined to peace with us, we went out carelessly in small parties, and some have been killed by the Sioux and Ricaras. But I knew that the Ricaras were liars, and I told their chief who accompanied you, that his whole nation were liars and bad men; that we had several times made a peace with them which they were the first to break; that whenever we pleased we might shoot them like buffalo, but that we had no wish to kill them; that we would not suffer them to kill us, nor steal our horses; and that although we agreed to make peace with them, because our two fathers desired it, yet we did not believe that they would be faithful long. Such, father, was my language to them in your presence, and you see that instead of listening to your good counsels they have spilled our blood. A few days ago two Ricaras came here and told us that two of their villages were making moccasins, that the Sioux were stirring them up against us, and that we ought to take care of our horses; yet these very Ricaras we sent home as soon as the news reached us today, lest our people should kill them in the first moment of grief for their murdered relatives. Four of the Wattasoons whom we expected back in sixteen days have been absent twenty-four, and we fear have fallen. But, father, the snow is now deep, the weather cold, and our horses cannot travel through the plains: the murderers have gone off: if you will conduct us in the spring, when the snow has disappeared, we will assemble all the surrounding warriors and follow you." Captain Clark replied that we were always willing and able to defend them; that he was sorry that the snow prevented their marching to meet the Sioux, since he wished to show them that the warriors of their great father would chastise the enemies of his obedient children who opened their ears to his advice; that if some Ricaras had joined the Sioux, they should remember that there were bad men in every nation, and that they should not be offended at the Ricaras till they saw whether these ill-disposed men were countenanced by the whole tribe; that the Sioux possessed great influence over the Ricaras, whom they supplied with military stores, and sometimes led them astray, because they were afraid to oppose them: but that this should be the less offensive since the Mandans themselves were under the same apprehensions from the Assiniboins and Knistenaux, and that while they were thus dependent, both the Ricaras and Mandans ought to keep on terms with their powerful neighbors, whom they may afterward set at defiance, when we shall supply them with arms, and take them under our protection. After two hours' conversation Captain Clark left the village. The chief repeatedly thanked him for the fatherly protection he had given them, observing that the whole village had been weeping all night and day for the brave young man who had been slain, but now they would wipe their eyes and weep no more as they saw that their father would protect them. He then crossed the river on the ice and returned on the north side to the fort. The day as well as the evening was cold, and the river rose to its former height. Saturday, December 1. The wind was from the northwest, and the whole party engaged in picketing the fort. About ten o'clock the half-brother of the man who had been killed came to inform us that six Sharhas or Chayenne Indians had arrived, bringing a pipe of peace, and that their nation was three days' march behind them. Three Pawnees had accompanied the Sharhas, and the Mandans, being afraid of the Sharhas on account of their being at peace with the Sioux, wished to put both them and the three Pawnees to death; but the chiefs had forbidden it as it would be contrary to our wishes. We gave him a present of tobacco, and although from his connection with the sufferer, he was more embittered against the Pawnees than any other Mandan, yet he seemed perfectly satisfied with our pacific counsels and advice. The Mandans, we observe, call all the Ricaras by the name of Pawness; the name of Ricaras being that by which the nation distinguishes itself. In the evening we were visited by a Mr. Henderson, who came from the Hudson Bay Company to trade with the Minnetarees. He had been about eight days on his route in a direction nearly south, and brought with him tobacco, beads, and other merchandise to trade for furs, and a few guns which are to be exchanged for horses. Sunday, December 2. The latter part of the evening was warm, and a thaw continued till the morning, when the wind shifted to the north. At eleven o'clock the chiefs of the lower village brought down four of the Sharhas. We explained to them our intentions, and advised them to remain at peace with each other: we also gave them a flag, some tobacco, and a speech for their nation. These were accompanied by a letter to Messrs. Tabeau and Gravelines at the Ricara village, requesting them to preserve peace if possible, and to declare the part which we should be forced to take if the Ricaras and Sioux made war on those whom we had adopted. After distributing a few presents to the Sharhas and Mandans, and showing them our curiosities we dismissed them, apparently well pleased at their reception. Monday, December 3. The morning was fine, but in the afternoon the weather became cold with the wind from the northwest. The father of the Mandan who was killed brought us a present of dried pumpkins and some pemitigon, for which we gave him some small articles. Our offer of assistance to avenge the death of his son seemed to have produced a grateful respect from him, as well as from the brother of the deceased, which pleased us much. Tuesday 4. The wind continues from the northwest, the weather cloudy and raw, and the river rose one inch. Oscapsahe and two young chiefs pass the day with us. The whole religion of the Mandans consists in the belief of one great spirit presiding over their destinies. This being must be in the nature of a good genius since it is associated with the healing art, and the great spirit is synonymous with great medicine, a name also applied to every thing which they do not comprehend. Each individual selects for himself the particular object of his devotion, which is termed his medicine, and is either some invisible being or more commonly some animal, which thenceforward becomes his protector or his intercessor with the great spirit; to propitiate whom every attention is lavished, and every personal consideration is sacrificed. "I was lately owner of seventeen horses," said a Mandan to us one day, "but I have offered them all up to my medicine and am now poor." He had in reality taken all his wealth, his horses, into the plain, and turning them loose committed them to the care of his medicine and abandoned them forever. The horses, less religious, took care of themselves, and the pious votary traveled home on foot. Their belief in a future state is connected with this tradition of their origin: the whole nation resided in one large village under ground near a subterraneous lake: a grapevine extended its roots down to their habitation and gave them a view of the light: some of the most adventurous climbed up the vine and were delighted with the sight of the earth, which they found covered with buffalo and rich with every kind of fruits: returning with the grapes they had gathered, their countrymen were so pleased with the taste of them that the whole nation resolved to leave their dull residence for the charms of the upper region; men, women, and children ascended by means of the vine; but when about half the nation had reached the surface of the earth, a corpulent women who was clambering up the vine broke it with her weight, and closed upon herself and the rest of the nation the light of the sun. Those who were left on earth made a village below where we saw the nine villages; and when the Mandans die they expect to return to the original seats of their forefathers; the good reaching the ancient village by means of the lake, which the burden of the sins of the wicked will not enable them to cross. Wednesday 5. The morning was cold and disagreeable, the wind from the southeast accompanied with snow: in the evening there was snow again and the wind shifted to the northeast: we were visited by several Indians with a present of pumpkins, and by two of the traders of the northwest company. Thursday 6. The wind was violent from the north northwest with some snow, the air keen and cold. At eight o'clock A.M. the thermometer stood at ten degrees above 0, and the river rose an inch and a half in the course of the day. Friday, December 7. The wind still continued from the northwest and the day is very cold: Shahaka the chief of the lower village came to apprise us that the buffalo were near, and that his people were waiting for us to join them in the chase: Captain Clark with fifteen men went out and found the Indians engaged in killing the buffalo, the hunters mounted on horseback and armed with bows and arrows encircle the herd, and gradually drive them into a plain or an open place fit for the movement of horse; they then ride in among them, and singling out a buffalo, a female being preferred, go as close as possible and wound her with arrows till they think they have given the mortal stroke; when they pursue another till the quiver is exhausted: if, which rarely happens, the wounded buffalo attacks the hunter, he evades his blow by the agility of his horse, which is trained for the combat with great dexterity. When they have killed the requisite number they collect their game, and the squaws and attendants come up from the rear and skin and dress the animals. Captain Clark killed ten buffalo, of which five only were brought to the fort, the rest which could not be conveyed home being seized by the Indians, among whom the custom is that whenever a buffalo is found dead without an arrow or any particular mark, he is the property of the finder; so that often a hunter secures scarcely any of the game he kills if the arrow happens to fall off; whatever is left out at night falls to the share of the wolves, who are the constant and numerous attendants of the buffalo. The river closed opposite the fort last night, an inch and a half in thickness. In the morning the thermometer stood at one degree below 0. Three men were badly frostbitten in consequence of their exposure. Saturday 8. The thermometer stood at twelve degrees below 0, that is at forty-two degrees below the freezing point: the wind was from the northwest. Captain Lewis with fifteen men went out to hunt the buffalo; great numbers of which darkened the prairies for a considerable distance: they did not return till after dark, having killed eight buffalo and one deer. The hunt was, however, very fatiguing, as they were obliged to make a circuit at the distance of more than seven miles: the cold too was so excessive that the air was filled with icy particles resembling a fog, and the snow generally six or eight inches deep and sometimes eighteen, in consequence of which two of the party were hurt by falls, and several had their feet frostbitten. Sunday 9. The wind was this day from the east, the thermometer at seven degrees above 0, and the sun shone clear: two chiefs visited us, one in a sleigh drawn by a dog and loaded with meat. Monday 10. Captain Clark who had gone out yesterday with eighteen men to bring in the meat we had killed the day before, and to continue the hunt, came in at twelve o'clock. After killing nine buffalo and preparing that already dead, he had spent a cold disagreeable night on the snow, with no covering but a small blanket, sheltered by the hides of the buffalo they had killed. We observe large herds of buffalo crossing the river on the ice, the men who were frostbitten are recovering, but the weather is still exceedingly cold, the wind being from the north, and the thermometer at ten and eleven degrees below 0: the rise of the river is one inch and a half. Tuesday 11. The weather became so intensely cold that we sent for all the hunters who had remained out with Captain Clark's party, and they returned in the evening, several of them frostbitten. The wind was from the north and the thermometer at sunrise stood at twenty-one below 0, the ice in the atmosphere being so thick as to render the weather hazy and give the appearance of two suns reflecting each other. The river continued at a stand. Pocapsahe made us a visit today. Wednesday, December 12. The wind is still from the north, the thermometer being at sunrise thirty-eight degrees below 0. One of the Ahnahaways brought us down the half of an antelope killed near the fort; we had been informed that all these animals return to the Black Mountains, but there are great numbers of them about us at this season which we might easily kill, but are unwilling to venue out before our constitutions are hardened gradually to the climate. We measured the river on the ice, and find it five hundred yards wide immediately opposite the fort. Thursday 13. Last night was clear and a very heavy frost covered the old snow, the thermometer at sunrise being twenty degrees below 0, and followed by a fine day. The river falls. Friday 14. The morning was fine, and the weather having moderated so far, that the mercury stood at 0, Captain Lewis went down with a party to hunt; they proceeded about eighteen miles, but the buffalo having left the banks of the river they saw only two, which were so poor as not to be worth killing, and shot two deer. Notwithstanding the snow we were visited by a large number of the Mandans. Saturday 15. Captain Lewis finding no game returned to the fort hunting on both sides of the river, but with no success. The wind being from the north, the mercury at sunrise eight degrees below 0, and the snow of last night an inch and a half in depth. The Indian chiefs continue to visit us today with presents of meat. Sunday 16. The morning is clear and cold, the mercury at sunrise 22 degrees below 0. A Mr. Haney, with two other persons from the British establishment on the Assiniboin, arrived in six days with a letter from Mr. Charles Chaubouilles, one of the company, who with much politeness offered to render us any service in his power. Monday 17. The weather today was colder than any we had yet experienced, the thermometer at sunrise being 45 degrees below 0, and about eight o'clock it fell to 74 degrees below the freezing point From Mr. Haney, who is a very sensible intelligent man, we obtained much geographical information with regard to the country between the Missouri and Mississippi, and the various tribes of Sioux who inhabit it. Tuesday 18. The thermometer at sunrise was 32 degrees below 0. The Indians had invited us yesterday to join their chase today, but the seven men whom we sent returned in consequence of the cold, which was so severe last night that we were obliged to have the sentinel relieved every half hour. The northwest traders, however, left us on their return home. Wednesday 19. The weather moderated, and the river rose a little, so that we were enabled to continue the picketing of the fort. Notwithstanding the extreme cold, we observe the Indians at the village engaged out in the open air at a game which resembled billiards more than any thing we had seen, and which we inclined to suspect may have been acquired by ancient intercourse with the French of Canada. From the first to the second chief's lodge, a distance of about fifty yards, was covered with timber smoothed and joined so as to be as level as the floor of one of our houses, with a battery at the end to stop the rings: these rings were of clay-stone and flat like the chequers for drafts, and the sticks were about four feet long, with two short pieces at one end in the form of a mace, so fixed that the whole will slide along the board. Two men fix themselves at one end, each provided with a stick, and one of them with a ring; they then run along the board, and about half way slide the sticks after the ring. Thursday 20. The wind was from the N.W., the weather moderate, the thermometer 24 degrees above 0 at sunrise. We availed ourselves of this change to picket the fort near the river. Friday 21. The day was fine and warm, the wind N.W. by W. The Indian who had been prevented a few days ago from killing his wife came with both his wives to the fort, and was very desirous of reconciling our interpreter, a jealousy against whom, on account of his wife's taking refuge in his house, had been the cause of his animosity. A woman brought her child with an abscess in the lower part of the back, and offered as much corn as she could carry for some medicine; we administered to it, of course, very cheerfully. Saturday 22. A number of squaws and men dressed like squaws brought corn to trade for small articles with the men. Among other things we procured two horns of the animal called by the French the rock mountain sheep, and known to the Mandans by the name of ahsahta. The animal itself is about the size of a small elk or large deer: the horns winding like those of a ram, which they resemble also in texture, though larger and thicker. Sunday 23. The weather was fine and warm like that of yesterday: we were again visited by crowds of Indians of all descriptions, who came either to trade or from mere curiosity. Among the rest Kogahami, the Little Raven, brought his wife and son loaded with corn, and she then entertained us with a favorite Mandan dish, a mixture of pumpkins, beans, corn, and chokecherries with the stones, all boiled together in a kettle. and forming a composition by no means unpalatable. Monday 24. The day continued warm and pleasant, and the number of visitors became troublesome. As a present to three of the chiefs, we divided a fillet of sheep-skin which we brought for spunging into three pieces each of two inches in width; they were delighted at the gift, which they deemed of equal value with a fine horse. We this day completed our fort, and the next morning being Christmas. Tuesday 25. We were awakened before day by a discharge of three platoons from the party. We had told the Indians not to visit us as it was one of our great medicine days; so that the men remained at home and amused themselves in various ways, particularly with dancing, in which they take great pleasure. The American flag was hoisted for the first time in the fort; the best provisions we had were brought out, and this, with a little brandy, enabled them to pass the day in great festivity. Wednesday 26. The weather is again temperate, but no Indians have come to see us. One of the northwest traders who came down to request the aid of our Minnetaree interpreter informs us that a party of Minnetarees who had gone in pursuit of the Assiniboins who lately stole their horses had just returned. As is their custom, they came back in small detachments, the last of which brought home eight horses which they had captured or stolen from an Assiniboin camp on Mouse River. Thursday 27. A little fine snow fell this morning and the air was colder than yesterday, with a high northwest wind. We were fortunate enough to have among our men a good blacksmith, whom we set to work to make a variety of articles: his operations seemed to surprise the Indians who came to see us, but nothing could equal their astonishment at the bellows, which they considered as a very great medicine. Having heretofore promised a more particular account of the Sioux, the following may serve as a general outline of their history: Almost the whole of that vast tract of country comprised between the Mississippi, the Red River of Lake Winnipeg, the Saskaskawan, and the Missouri, is loosely occupied by a great nation whose primitive name is Darcota, but who are called Sioux by the French, Sues by the English. Their original seats were on the Mississippi, but they have gradually spread themselves abroad and become subdivided into numerous tribes. Of these, what may be considered as the Darcotas are the Mindawarcarton, or Minowakanton, known to the French by the name of the Gens du Lac, or People of the Lake. Their residence is on both sides of the Mississippi near the falls of St. Anthony, and the probable number of their warriors about three hundred. Above them, on the River St. Peter's, is the Wahpatone, a smaller band of nearly two hundred men; and still further up the same river below Yellowwood River are the Wahpatootas or Gens de Feuilles, an inferior band of not more than one hundred men; while the sources of the St. Peter's are occupied by the Sisatoones, a band consisting of about two hundred warriors. These bands rarely if ever approach the Missouri, which is occupied by their kinsmen the Yanktons and the Tetons. The Yanktons are of two tribes, those of the plains, or rather of the north, a wandering race of about five hundred men, who roam over the plains at the heads of the Jacques, the Sioux, and the Red River; and those of the south, who possess the country between the Jacques and Sioux Rivers and the Desmoine. But the bands of Sioux most known on the Missouri are the Tetons. The first who are met on ascending the Missouri is the tribe called by the French the Tetons of the Boise Brule or Burntwood, who reside on both sides of the Missouri, about White and Teton Rivers, and number two hundred warriors. Above them on the Missouri are the Teton Okandandas, a band of one hundred and fifty men living below the Chayenne River, between which and the Wetarhoo River is a third band, called Teton Minnakenozzo, of nearly two hundred and fifty men; and below the Warrecoune is the fourth and last tribe of Tetons of about three hundred men, and called Teton Saone. Northward of these, between the Assiniboin and the Missouri, are two bands of Assiniboins, one on Mouse River of about two hundred men, and called Assiniboin Menatopa; the other, residing on both sides of White River, called by the French Gens de Feuilles, and amounting to two hundred and fifty men. Beyond these a band of Assiniboins of four hundred and fifty men, and called the Big Devils, wander on the heads of Milk, Porcupine, and Martha's Rivers; while still farther to the north are seen two bands of the same nation, one of five hundred and the other of two hundred, roving on the Saskaskawan, Those Assiniboins are recognized by a similarity of language, and by tradition as descendants or seceders from the Sioux; though often at war are still acknowledged as relations. The Sioux themselves, though scattered, meet annually on the Jacques, those on the Missouri trading with those on the Mississippi.

"No general use can ever be made of the wrecks of my loss": a reconsidered history of the Indian vocabularies collected on the Lewis and Clark expedition

Hoping that comparative linguistics would show that Native languages descended from European or Asian roots, Thomas Jefferson collected dozens of standardized Native language word lists, or Indian vocabularies. He asked Lewis and Clark to expand his database during their 1804 to 1806 journey, and they did so, collecting 280-word keys to at least twenty-three Indian languages, many from tribes west of the Mississippi whose words had never before been written down. None of these vocabularies were ever published. In 1809, three years after the Lewis and Clark expedition, a thief threw Indian vocabularies belonging to Jefferson overboard into the James River. American history scholars have consistently, and mistakenly, claimed that the Indian vocabularies collected by Lewis and Clark were among the Indian vocabularies destroyed during this theft. New findings reopen what has previously been described as a simple story of unfortunate loss. From previously unpublished handwritten court records, I have identified the man convicted of stealing Jefferson's Indian vocabularies and the details of his arrest, conviction, and sentencing. From Jefferson's late correspondence and from the inventory taken at the site of Lewis's death three months after the trial, I offer clear evidence that Lewis and Clark's Indian vocabularies were not among those stolen. These new findings both alter the historical narrative and also offer a narrowed field to any Native scholars interested in pursuing and reclaiming these "lost" vocabularies. Hoping to prove that Native languages descended from European or Asian roots, Thomas Jefferson began collecting Indian vocabularies in 1791, and over the next thirty years he amassed about sixty Indian vocabularies. Jefferson created his own 280-word printed cardstock template of common English words. It is an oversize sheet that folds into quadrants for travel, with constellations of related words beginning with fire and ending with no. There is room next to each English word for its Native equivalent, but no room on the page for any context: no space for observations of the people or the community, though at times a field collector might scrawl a few notes in the margin. No room for grammar, either. When Jefferson sent Meriwether Lewis and William Clark on their 1804 to 1806 journey across the United States, one of the tasks the explorers were assigned was to collect Indian vocabularies--written lists of Native equivalents to common English words--during interactions with as many of the Indian communities they met along their route as possible. (1) Jefferson lamented that so many Native tribes had disappeared "without our having previously collected and deposited in the records of literature the general rudiments at least of the languages they spoke." (2) When Jefferson began to compare Indian vocabularies, it was quickly obvious that not only was his tongue not the father of these languages, but that Native languages showed a diversity and complexity that indicated Native cultures had existed here for a very long time, diverging and merging by turn as cultures do over tens of thousands of years. (3) The extended history indicated by this diversity was particularly observable in the grammars of the languages, which built their sentences so very differently than European and Asian models, and showed several distinct Native language families as well. Grammar is thought, is logic, is worldview. Each language builds a particular city map in the brains of those who speak it. Jefferson, and most other early American amateur linguists during the early years of interaction, quickly found themselves in cities they could not navigate. Cities that were not laid out by European or Asian planners, but were older and more complex. During the early years of European contact, Native languages showed what the land did not. The long history indicated by the complex city maps of these languages stood in contrast to the ravaged appearance of Native cities and towns themselves, which had been under attack for the preceding three decades as successive epidemics of influenza and smallpox swept back and forth across the land. (4) Perceiving the Natives they met as powerless, impoverished, transient--members of a dying race--whose towns were now ruins and abandoned, their lands empty and available, the explorers found it in their own best interest to minimize contrary indications of a long and prosperous Native history, indications that included the complex languages they heard as they passed through, spoken by the survivors of these epidemics, who were now their guides. The vast majority of these Indian vocabularies were never published. The period of intense Euro-American interest in Native languages, a period during which many Native language vocabularies were collected by amateur fieldworkers hoping to capture the last echoes of a disappearing civilization, ended with a scholarly silence that has continued. As the young U.S. government began to create the reservation system, and other forms of systemically removing Native people from their land, U.S. engagement with Native language and culture sharply waned. One of the ways in which the explorers, and the generations of white American scholars in their wake, have hampered the continuing work of Native language preservation is by abandoning these early, vital, irreplaceable records without publishing them or sharing them with contemporary Native linguists. I am a white American poet. My second book of poems, Wintering (forthcoming in 2016 from Tupelo Press), is engaged with the November of Lewis and Clark's arrival at the Pacific Ocean. The explorers were miserable that winter, and built a fort to protect themselves. The password the men whispered to each other at the gate to their fort was No Chinook. (5) That winter, the men collected Indian vocabularies, as they did throughout the expedition, for a total of at least twenty-three. In my study, I read dozens of scholarly versions of the explorers' November, each version slightly different from the last. I became curious about what happened to all of the Indian vocabularies they collected, and as I began to search for that chapter of the story, I was puzzled to find that all scholarly accounts of the vocabularies' fate seem to use the same boilerplate text: after the expedition, the vocabularies were sadly lost. If the text expands beyond that, it is to say that after the expedition, the vocabularies were sadly lost when a thief stole them from a trunk belonging to Thomas Jefferson. The thief was tricked by the heaviness of the trunk into thinking that the trunk contained gold or other items of value. On opening the trunk and discovering the paper vocabularies, the frustrated thief flung them into the James River, where they were ruined beyond repair. After encountering nearly identical phrasing in dozens of otherwise nuanced and engaging texts, (6) I wondered if there were more to this chapter of the story. I began by trying to find out the thief's name. To my surprise, significant and until-now unpublished details of this story rose smoothly to the surface. What I found differs starkly from the narrative most Lewis and Clark historians seem to agree on. (7) Using handwritten court records brittle-folded in an envelope at the Library of Virginia, Jefferson's post-presidency correspondence at Monticello, and the Sappho-like vocabulary fragments at the American Philosophical Society, among other carefully cataloged, but empty, folders, I began to piece together a fuller, more complex narrative of the fate of the Indian vocabularies collected during the Lewis and Clark expedition. During the two-year expedition, Lewis recorded at least twenty-three Indian vocabularies, about a dozen of which were from tribes located west of the Mississippi, whose languages had never been recorded in written form before. He sent two (the Iowa and the Sioux) back with Captain Amos Stoddard, and another nine back from Saint Louis in the fall of 1806. He brought the remaining ten to twelve vocabularies back to Jefferson in person at the end of the journey. After showing the vocabularies to Jefferson, and likely allowing them to be copied, Lewis asked Jefferson for permission to keep his originals so that he might publish those vocabularies along with his journals and scientific findings from the expedition. In his 1807 prospectus for the material he planned to publish, Lewis stated that the second volume of the account "will contain a comparative view of twenty three vocabularies of distinct Indian languages, procured by Captains Lewis and Clark on the voyage." (8) This, along with an 1829 letter from Jefferson, shows that the Indian vocabularies Lewis collected were not among Jefferson's stolen Indian vocabulary collection. By the time the Corps of Discovery set out, Jefferson had twenty-two Indian vocabularies, taken from tribes east of the Mississippi. With the help of a variety of amateur collectors, over the course of thirty years that collection grew to thirty or forty Indian vocabularies from tribes east of the Mississippi. These originals, as well as any copies Jefferson may have received in his frequent correspondence with other linguists, were likely what was destroyed during the riverboat theft. While president, Jefferson often traveled between the White House and the house he was building at Monticello in the Virginia hills. He often shipped dozens of trunks of his possessions ahead of him. These trunks traveled by boat from the White House down the Potomac River to the Chesapeake Bay and up the James River to Richmond, and then were transferred to smaller boats for the last leg of their journey up one of the two private canals on Jefferson's Monticello estate. Loss was not uncommon. On June 4, 1807, Jefferson wrote to Lewis regarding the fate of one of his animal artifacts after one of these trips: "The horns, which I could not take on with me, were packed into one of 25 boxes, barrels, &c. which I sent round by water. The vessel was stranded, and everything lost which water could injure." (9) In his June 27 reply, Lewis writes, "I sincerely regret the loss you sustained in the articles you shiped for Richmond; it seems peculiarly unfortunate that those at least, which had passed the continent of America and after their exposure to so many casualties and wrisks should have met such destiny in their passage through a small portion only of the Chesapeak." (10) Earlier that month, Lewis had published the prospectus for his account of the 1804 to 1806 expedition, and surely the safety of his Indian vocabularies was on his mind. The second loss--the one that has been erroneously linked to the Indian vocabularies Lewis collected--took place in May of 1809 as Jefferson ended his presidential term and left the capital for the last time. Jefferson's boat, loaded with twenty-nine trunks, waited overnight in Richmond, Virginia, in the James River Canal basin, anchored near Pickets Lumber Yard, watched over by an unnamed boatman. In the early morning hours, one of the trunks was stolen. Jefferson hadn't made an inventory of the trunks' contents, but over the next few weeks he created, and added to, a list of what was missing. On June 16, his cousin George placed an ad in the Richmond Enquirer for the trunk, which "contained principally writing paper of various qualities, but also some other articles of stationary, a pocket telescope with a brass case, a Dynamometer in steel and brass, or instrument for measuring the exertions of draught animals, a collection of vocabularies of the Indian languages, & some other articles not particularly noted in the memorandum taken." (11) From a July 1809 letter to George Jefferson from Samuel J. Harrison, (12) a local tobacco merchant and Lynchburg alderman, it appears that Jefferson asked Harrison to carry out the search for a thief. Harrison accused Ned, "a Noted Villain," and a slave owned by the recently deceased James B. Couch of Buckingham County, of the theft. According to Harrison, "he Threw it, with the Balance of the articles overboard, just below Britains Landing, nearly opposite westham." (13) On July 25, 1809, in Richmond, Virginia, a court of Oyer and Terminer was convened to hear the case. (14) Oyer and Terminer courts are a particular style of closed courts, used in slave trials and in the Salem witch trials. (15) Thomas Jefferson was not present at the trial, which lasted less than a day. Here is my transcription of the sole piece of evidence filed, a letter handwritten by Richmond mayor John Lynch Jr.: Whereas H. Parrington of the corporation aforesaid and hath given information, this day upon oath, to me John Lynch Jr. mayor of said corporation, that he is advised by George Jefferson of the City of Richmond, that on or about the day of last past at or near the City of Richmond, there was feloniously taken, stolen, and carried away from on Board a Certain Batteau, the property of [space left blank] then [2 words illegible] the city of Richmond, the Canal locks, a certain trunk, the property of Thomas Jefferson Esquire [...] was taken, stolen, & carried away by Ned, a Negro man slave, the property of the Estate of James B. Couch, dec'd, late of the County of Buckingham, [illegible] are therefore in the name of the Commonwealth [illegible] to apprehend the slave Ned, & to bring him before me, to answer the premises & further to be dealt with according to law--Given and in my hand this 13th day of July 1809. George Jefferson told H. Parrington, who swore to John Lynch Jr. that Ned was the thief. Lynch found Ned "guilty of felony and doth order that he be burnt in the left hand and receive thirty nine lashes on his bare back at the public whipping post." (16) It is unclear whether Lewis, living in Louisiana at the time, heard about this incident in which Jefferson's Indian vocabularies were destroyed. But that summer, Lewis, who had still not published his journals from the expedition, or any of his Indian vocabularies, became increasingly paranoid about the risk of his papers falling into the wrong hands. In September 1809, Lewis left for a trip to Washington, D.C., in hopes of resolving some of his ongoing personal financial problems, and then to Philadelphia to deliver the expedition-related papers to the publisher who had agreed to bring out the work. He had initially planned to travel by water but then decided the water route was too dangerous, and so traveled through the Chickasaw Nation by land, stating in a letter to President James Madison dated September 16, 1809, "My apprehension from the heat of the lower country and my fear of the original papers relative to my voyage falling into the hands of the British has induced me to change my rout and proceed by land through the state of Tennisee to the City of washington." (17) Waiting in Philadelphia was Benjamin Smith Barton, a self-taught linguist and pediatrician, who has been portrayed as both Jefferson's collaborator and a competitor, who also helped to train Lewis in the practice of collecting Indian vocabularies. He wrote to Jefferson on September 14, 1809, with the news that he was about to publish a book on American Indian languages, stating, "I am extremely anxious to possess specimens--no matter how small,--of the languages which Mr. Lewis met with beyond the Mississippi. I will think myself much gratified, and honoured, if you will transmit to me, as early as your convenience may suit, such specimens." (18) Where Jefferson's handwriting is tiny, precise, and upright, Barton's is loose, scrawled, barreling forward. Jefferson, in his September 21 reply, described the thirty years he had dedicated to amassing a comprehensive collection of about fifty Indian vocabularies, (19) a period during which he notes that his "opportunities were probably better than will ever occur again to any person having the same desire." By the time of this 1809 incident, he had not, however, published or even fully studied the vocabularies he possessed, and so when the bulk of his collection was dropped into the river that day, any record was lost. As Jefferson notes in his letter to Barton, Some leaves floated ashore & were found in the mud; but these were very few, & so defaced by the mud & water that no general use can ever be made of them. On the reciept of your letter I turned to them, & was very happy to find that the only morsel of an original vocabulary among them was Capt Lewis's of the Pani language of which you say you have not one word. I therefore inclose it to you, as it is, & a little fragment of some other, which I see is in his handwriting, but no indication remains on it of what language it is. [...] altho I believe no general use can ever be made of the wrecks of my loss, yet I will ask the return of the Pani vocabulary when you are done with it. perhaps I may make another attempt to collect, altho' I am too old to expect to make much progress in it. [...] (20) Early in the morning of October 11, 1809, having only made it as far as Nashville, Lewis shot himself. In the Memorandum of Lewis' Personal Effects, (21) dated November 23, "one do. vocabulary" is listed, with the note that it was forwarded on, with all other items relating to the expedition, to William Clark. Clark's responsibility at that point was to find someone to help write the narrative of the journey, and to prepare the journals for publication. Clark took the expedition-related papers to Philadelphia, and Nicholas Biddle (who published the first account of the expedition, in 1814) delivered the Indian vocabularies to Barton. In 1810, Barton wrote to Jefferson, "In regard to Mr. Lewis's papers, I assure you, and I beg you, Sir, to assure his friends, that they will be taken good care of; that it is my sincere wish to turn them, as much as I can, to his honour & reputation,--and that they shall ultimately be deposited, in good order, in the hands of General Clark, or those of Mr. Conrad, the publisher. During the Governor's [Lewis's] last visit to Philadelphia, there was some difference between him and me." (22) Barton died in 1815. He did not publish any of Lewis's vocabularies during his lifetime. In a letter dated April 26, 1816, to Jose Correa da Serra (who would soon become Spanish minister to the United States), Jefferson wrote of Lewis's Indian vocabularies, I had myself made a collection of about 40. vocabularies of the Indians on this side of the Missisipi, and Capt. Lewis was instructed to take those of every tribe beyond, which he possibly could: the intention was to publish the whole, and leave the world to search for affinities between these and the languages of Europe and Asia. He was furnished with a number of printed vocabularies of the same words and form I had used, with blank spaces for the Indian words. He was very attentive to this instruction, never missing an opportunity of taking a vocabulary. After his return, he asked me if I should have any objection to the printing his separately, as mine was not yet arranged as I intended. I assured him I had no objection; and I am certain he contemplated their publication. But whether he had put the papers out of his own hand or not, I do not know. I imagine he had not: and it is probable that Doctr. Barton, who was particularly curious on this subject, and published on it occasionally, would willingly receive and take care of these papers after Capt. Lewis's death, and that they are now among his papers. (23) In 1817, Jefferson offered the remains of his Indian vocabularies to the American Philosophical Society, with the acknowledgment that the ones Lewis collected had not yet been returned by Barton's estate. (24) In an April 6, 1818, letter to American Philosophical Society Historical Committee Chair William Tilghman, Biddle recalls delivering the Indian vocabularies to Barton after Lewis's death: My recollection is not as accurate as it would have been had they fallen more immediately under my examination. My impression however is that [...] the papers were Indian vocabularies, collected during the journey. They formed, I think, a bundle of loose sheets each sheet containing a printed vocabulary in English with the corresponding Indian name in manuscript. [...] In the preface to the printed travels which, being published in Phila. whilst Dr. Barton was there, must be presumed to have been correct it is stated that "[...] the alphabets of the Indian languages are in the hands of Professor Barton, and will it is understood, shortly appear." This was in 1814. I have mentioned these particulars so minutely because their description may perhaps enable some members of the Committee to recognize the vocabularies, which I incline to think were the only things delivered to me by Dr. Barton not included in the volumes now deposited. (25) Why, in the seventeen years after he lost his East Coast Indian vocabularies, didn't Jefferson make a stronger effort to retrieve Lewis's vocabularies from the successions of linguists and publishers who held them? Perhaps he had already gotten from the vocabularies what he wanted: an answer to the question of whether the tribal languages bore European or Asian roots. (26) They did not, and so, in Jefferson's mind, they might not have warranted his continued study. On February 20, 1825, just eighteen months before his death, Jefferson wrote to the linguist John Pickering of the vast differences in the grammars of Native and European languages, stating, "I believe we shall find it impossible to translate our language into any of the Indian, or any of theirs into ours." (27) I believe that Jefferson found the theft to be a convenient opportunity to wash his hands of a field of study he had grown disinterested in. Successive scholars have continued to conflate the riverboat theft with the loss of Lewis's Indian vocabularies, obscuring the path for any linguists who might find use in recovering these documents. Considering how easily I, a non-scholar, was able to locate significant "new" findings, I would be truly surprised if there is not more to be found, perhaps including the vocabularies themselves, information that belongs to contemporary Native linguists. Some of Barton's papers, along with Jefferson's, are held at the American Philosophical Society. (28) Among them are Indian vocabularies, most still unpublished, as well as the carefully archived muddy remnants of the ones fished from the James River. Searching every file, I could find no trace of the Indian vocabularies Lewis painstakingly collected. That doesn't mean they can't be found. "You can't say that Lewis's vocabularies are lost," the archivist at the American Philosophical Society reminded me at the end of my three-day search. "It's only that you did not find them." These distinctive vocabularies, on oversize card stock, would be unlikely to have ever been mistaken for scrap. A deeper search among Barton's papers, or a search among the papers of other amateur linguists with whom Barton exchanged language samples in search of these particular vocabularies, has not yet been undertaken. As a white poet whose archival work over the past five years has ushered me into many small, closed rooms of "findings" stored out of sight in museum attics or in library special collections, I feel a responsibility to speak out against the combination of scholarly hoarding and neglect I have encountered, and to try not to perpetuate the mentality of early American settlers myself. It is not my place to continue the search for these vocabularies: they are not mine to find. And whether or not these particular Indian vocabularies are ever located, is my hope that this part of the story might be of use to Native scholars and linguists, and that a correction of the historical account will encourage Lewis and Clark scholars to tackle the sticky questions raised here, rather than portray this chapter as closed.

Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia

Introduction President Andrew Jackson's policy of extinguishing Native American title to ancestral lands, employed with success against the Choctaws and Chickasaws, was seriously challenged in Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia. In 1828 the government of Georgia declared null all laws, titles, and customs of the Cherokees inhabiting the northwest portion of that state. The Cherokees, having previously declared themselves an independent nation, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to restrain the Georgia government. Though he was sympathetic to the plight of the Cherokees, Chief Justice John Marshall led the Court in refusing to grant such an injunction and, in the following opinion delivered in 1831, declared that the Cherokees were not a foreign government but a domestic dependent nation in pupilage to the state. Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court: This bill is brought by the Cherokee Nation, praying an injunction to restrain the state of Georgia from the execution of certain laws of that state, which as is alleged, go directly to annihilate the Cherokees as a political society, and to seize, for the use of Georgia, the lands of the nation which have been assured to them by the United States in solemn treaties repeatedly made and still in force. If courts were permitted to indulge their sympathies, a case better calculated to excite them can scarcely be imagined. A people once numerous, powerful, and truly independent, found by our ancestors in the quiet and uncontrolled possession of an ample domain, gradually sinking beneath our superior policy, our arts, and our arms, have yielded their lands by successive treaties, each of which contains a solemn guarantee of the residue, until they retain no more of their formerly extensive territory than is deemed necessary to their comfortable subsistence. To preserve this remnant the present application is made. Before we can look into the merits of the case, a preliminary inquiry presents itself. Has this Court jurisdiction of the cause? The 3rd Article of the Constitution describes the extent of the judicial power. The 2nd Section closes an enumeration of the cases to which it is extended, with "controversies" "between a state or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects." A subsequent clause of the same section gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in all cases in which a state shall be a party. The party defendant may then unquestionably be sued in this Court. May the plaintiff sue in it? Is the Cherokee Nation a foreign state in the sense in which that term is used in the Constitution? The counsel for the plaintiffs have maintained the affirmative of this proposition with great earnestness and ability. So much of the argument as was intended to prove the character of the Cherokees as a state, as a distinct political society separated from others, capable of managing its own affairs and governing itself, has, in the opinion of a majority of the judges, been completely successful. They have been uniformly treated as a state from the settlement of our country. The numerous treaties made with them by the United States recognize them as a people capable of maintaining the relations of peace and war, of being responsible in their political character for any violation of their engagements, or for any aggression committed on the citizens of the United States by any individual of their community. Laws have been enacted in the spirit of these treaties. The acts of our government plainly recognize the Cherokee Nation as a state, and the courts are bound by those acts. A question of much more difficulty remains. Do the Cherokees constitute a foreign state in the sense of the Constitution? The counsel have shown conclusively that they are not a state of the Union, and have insisted that individually they are aliens, not owing allegiance to the United States. An aggregate of aliens composing a state must, they say, be a foreign state. Each individual being foreign, the whole must be foreign. This argument is imposing, but we must examine it more closely before we yield to it. The condition of the Indians in relation to the United States is perhaps unlike that of any other two people in existence. In the general, nations not owing a common allegiance are foreign to each other. The term "foreign nation" is, with strict propriety, applicable by either to the other. But the relation of the Indians to the United States is marked by peculiar and cardinal distinctions which exist nowhere else. The Indian Territory is admitted to compose part of the United States. In all our maps, geographical treatises, histories, and laws, it is so considered. In all our intercourse with foreign nations, in our commercial regulations, in any attempt at intercourse between Indians and foreign nations, they are considered as within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, subject to many of those restraints which are imposed upon our own citizens. They acknowledge themselves in their treaties to be under the protection of the United States; they admit that the United States shall have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the trade with them and managing all their affairs as they think proper; and the Cherokees in particular were allowed by the Treaty of Hopewell, which preceded the Constitution, "to send a deputy of their choice, whenever they think fit, to Congress." Treaties were made with some tribes by the state of New York under a then unsettled construction of the Confederation, by which they ceded all their lands to that state, taking back a limited grant to themselves in which they admit their dependence. Though the Indians are acknowledged to have an unquestionable and, heretofore, unquestioned right to the lands they occupy until that right shall be extinguished by a voluntary cession to our government, yet it may well be doubted whether those tribes which reside within the acknowledged boundaries of the United States can, with strict accuracy, be denominated foreign nations. They may more correctly, perhaps, be denominated domestic dependent nations. They occupy a territory to which we assert a title independent of their will, which must take effect in point of possession when their right of possession ceases. Meanwhile, they are in a state of pupilage. Their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian. They look to our government for protection; rely upon its kindness and its power; appeal to it for relief to their wants; and address the President as their "great father." They and their country are considered by foreign nations, as well as by ourselves, as being so completely under the sovereignty and dominion of the United States that any attempt to acquire their lands or to form a political connection with them would be considered by all as an invasion of our territory and an act of hostility. These considerations go far to support the opinion that the framers of our Constitution had not the Indian tribes in view when they opened the courts of the Union to controversies between a state or the citizens thereof and foreign states. In considering this subject, the habits and usages of the Indians in their intercourse with their white neighbors ought not to be entirely disregarded. At the time the Constitution was framed, the idea of appealing to an American court of justice for an assertion of right or a redress of wrong had perhaps never entered the mind of an Indian or of his tribe. Their appeal was to the tomahawk, or to the government. This was well understood by the statesmen who framed the Constitution of the United States, and might furnish some reason for omitting to enumerate them among the parties who might sue in the courts of the Union. Be this as it may, the peculiar relations between the United States and the Indians occupying our territory are such that we should feel much difficulty in considering them as designated by the term "foreign state" were there no other part of the Constitution which might shed light on the meaning of these words. But we think that in construing them, considerable aid is furnished by that clause in the 8th Section of the 3rd Article, which empowers Congress to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." In this clause they are as clearly contra-distinghished by a name appropriate to themselves from foreign nations as from the several states composing the Union. They are designated by a distinct appellation; and as this appellation can be applied to neither of the others, neither can the appellation distinguishing either of the others be in fair construction applied to them. The objects to which the power of regulating commerce might be directed are divided into three distinct classes: foreign nations, the several states, and Indian tribes. When forming this article, the Convention considered them as entirely distinct. We cannot assume that the distinction was lost in framing a subsequent article, unless there be something in its language to authorize the assumption. ... "Foreign nations" is a general term, the application of which to Indian tribes, when used in the American Constitution, is at best extremely questionable. In one article in which a power is given to be exercised in regard to foreign nations generally, and to the Indian tribes particularly, they are mentioned as separate in terms clearly contra-distinguishing them from each other. We perceive plainly that the Constitution in this article does not comprehend Indian tribes in the general term "foreign nations"; not, we presume, because a tribe may not be a nation but because it is not foreign to the United States. When, afterward, the term "foreign state" is introduced, we cannot impute to the Convention the intention to desert its former meaning and to comprehend Indian tribes within it, unless the context force that construction on us. We find nothing in the context and nothing in the subject of the article which leads to it. The Court has bestowed its best attention on this question and, after mature deliberation, the majority is of opinion that an Indian tribe or nation within the United States is not a foreign state in the sense of the Constitution, and cannot maintain an action in the courts of the United States. A serious additional objection exists to the jurisdiction of the Court. Is the matter of the bill the proper subject for judicial inquiry and decision? It seeks to restrain a state from the forcible exercise of legislative power over a neighboring people, asserting their independence; their right to which the state denies. On several of the matters alleged in the bill, for example on the laws making it criminal to exercise the usual powers of self-government in their own country by the Cherokee Nation, this Court cannot interpose, at least in the form in which those matters are presented. That part of the bill which respects the land occupied by the Indians, and prays the aid of the Court to protect their possession, may be more doubtful. The mere question of right might perhaps be decided by this Court in a proper case with proper parties. But the Court is asked to do more than decide on the title. The bill requires us to control the legislature of Georgia, and to restrain the exertion of its physical force. The propriety of such an interposition by the Court may be well questioned. It savors too much of the exercise of political power to be within the proper province of the Judicial Department. But the opinion on the point respecting parties makes it unnecessary to decide this question. If it be true that the Cherokee Nation have rights, this is not the tribunal in which those rights are to be asserted. If it be true that wrongs have been inflicted and that still greater are to be apprehended, this is not the tribunal which can redress the past or prevent the future. The motion for an injunction is denied.

On Indian Removal

Introduction Westward expansion brought the United States into contact with numerous Indian tribes, and the admission of new states brought certain Indian lands within the national boundaries. In the following message to Congress of December 6, 1830, President Andrew Jackson inaugurated the policy of extinguishing all Indian title to such lands and removing Native Americansto an area beyond the Mississippi River. The President asserted that such a policy would avoid a "collision" between federal authority over Native Americans and state jurisdiction of their lands, and that it would open to "dense and civilized population" areas previously occupied only by "a few savage hunters." The policy was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia, but when Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in Worcester v. Georgia that the Indians retained certain rights in their own lands, Jackson is said to have retorted, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation. Two important tribes have accepted the provision made for their removal at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that their example will induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages. The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the United States, to individual states, and to the Indians themselves. The pecuniary advantages which it promises to the government are the least of its recommendations. It puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the general and state governments on account of the Indians. It will place a dense and civilized population in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage hunters. By opening the whole territory between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent states strong enough to repel future invasions without remote aid. It will relieve the whole state of Mississippi and the western part of Alabama of Indian occupancy, and enable those states to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power. It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the states; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community. These consequences, some of them so certain and the rest so probable, make the complete execution of the plan sanctioned by Congress at their last session an object of much solicitude. Toward the aborigines of the country no one can indulge a more friendly feeling than myself, or would go further in attempting to reclaim them from their wandering habits and make them a happy, prosperous people. I have endeavored to impress upon them my own solemn convictions of the duties and powers of the general government in relation to the state authorities. For the justice of the laws passed by the states within the scope of their reserved powers they are not responsible to this government. As individuals we may entertain and express our opinions of their acts, but as a government we have as little right to control them as we have to prescribe laws for other nations. With a full understanding of the subject, the Choctaw and the Chickasaw tribes have with great unanimity determined to avail themselves of the liberal offers presented by the act of Congress, and have agreed to remove beyond the Mississippi River. Treaties have been made with them, which in due season will be submitted for consideration. In negotiating these treaties, they were made to understand their true condition, and they have preferred maintaining their independence in the Western forests to submitting to the laws of the states in which they now reside. These treaties, being probably the last which will ever be made with them, are characterized by great liberality on the part of the government. They give the Indians a liberal sum in consideration of their removal, and comfortable subsistence on their arrival at their new homes. If it be their real interest to maintain a separate existence, they will there be at liberty to do so without the inconveniences and vexations to which they would unavoidably have been subject in Alabama and Mississippi. Humanity has often wept over the fate of the aborigines of this country, and philanthropy has been long busily employed in devising means to avert it, but its progress has never for a moment been arrested, and one by one have many powerful tribes disappeared from the earth. To follow to the tomb the last of his race and to tread on the graves of extinct nations excite melancholy reflections. But true philanthropy reconciles the mind to these vicissitudes as it does to the extinction of one generation to make room for another. In the monuments and fortresses of an unknown people, spread over the extensive regions of the West, we behold the memorials of a once powerful race, which was exterminated or has disappeared to make room for the existing savage tribes. Nor is there anything in this which, upon a comprehensive view of the general interests of the human race, is to be regretted. Philanthropy could not wish to see this continent restored to the condition in which it was found by our forefathers. What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12 million happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion? The present policy of the government is but a continuation of the same progressive change by a milder process. The tribes which occupied the countries now constituting the Eastern states were annihilated or have melted away to make room for the whites. The waves of population and civilization are rolling to the westward, and we now propose to acquire the countries occupied by the red men of the South and West by a fair exchange, and, at the expense of the United States, to send them to a land where their existence may be prolonged and perhaps made perpetual. Doubtless it will be painful to leave the graves of their fathers; but what do they more than our ancestors did or than our children are now doing? To better their condition in an unknown land our forefathers left all that was dear in earthly objects. Our children by thousands yearly leave the land of their birth to seek new homes in distant regions. Does humanity weep at these painful separations from everything, animate and inanimate, with which the young heart has become entwined? Far from it. It is rather a source of joy that our country affords scope where our young population may range unconstrained in body or in mind, developing the power and faculties of man in their highest perfection. These remove hundreds and almost thousands of miles at their own expense, purchase the lands they occupy, and support themselves at their new homes from the moment of their arrival. Can it be cruel in this government when, by events which it cannot control, the Indian is made discontented in his ancient home to purchase his lands, to give him a new and extensive territory, to pay the expense of his removal, and support him a year in his new abode? How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportunity of removing to the West on such conditions? If the offers made to the Indians were extended to them, they would be hailed with gratitude and joy. And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian? Is it more afflicting to him to leave the graves of his fathers than it is to our brothers and children? Rightly considered, the policy of the general government toward the red man is not only liberal but generous. He is unwilling to submit to the laws of the states and mingle with their population. To save him from this alternative, or perhaps utter annihilation, the general government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement. In the consummation of a policy originating at an early period, and steadily pursued by every administration within the present century — so just to the states and so generous to the Indians — the executive feels it has a right to expect the cooperation of Congress and of all good and disinterested men. The states, moreover, have a right to demand it. It was substantially a part of the compact which made them members of our Confederacy. With Georgia there is an express contract; with the new states an implied one of equal obligation. Why, in authorizing Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Mississippi, and Alabama to form constitutions and become separate states, did Congress include within their limits extensive tracts of Indian lands, and, in some instances, powerful Indian tribes? Was it not understood by both parties that the power of the states was to be coextensive with their limits, and that, with all convenient dispatch, the general government should extinguish the Indian title and remove every obstruction to the complete jurisdiction of the state governments over the soil? Probably not one of those states would have accepted a separate existence — certainly it would never have been granted by Congress — had it been understood that they were to be confined forever to those small portions of their nominal territory the Indian title to which had at the time been extinguished. It is, therefore, a duty which this government owes to the new states to extinguish as soon as possible the Indian title to all lands which Congress themselves have included within their limits. When this is done the duties of the general government in relation to the states and the Indians within their limits are at an end. The Indians may leave the state or not, as they choose. The purchase of their lands does not alter in the least their personal relations with the state government. No act of the general government has ever been deemed necessary to give the states jurisdiction over the persons of the Indians. That they possess by virtue of their sovereign power within their own limits in as full a manner before as after the purchase of the Indian lands; nor can this government add to or diminish it. May we not hope, therefore, that all good citizens, and none more zealously than those who think the Indians oppressed by subjection to the laws of the states, will unite in attempting to open the eyes of those children of the forest to their true condition, and by a speedy removal to relieve them from all the evils, real or imaginary, present or prospective, with which they may be supposed to be threatened.

Leonard, Zenas

Excerpt from Adventures of Zenas Leonard Fur Trader Edited by John C. Ewers Published in 1959 More than anything else, the growing fur trade attracted white men across the Mississippi River into the interior of North America. Fur traders, also called mountain men, had traveled over the Appalachian Mountains, around the Great Lakes, over the Rocky Mountains, and into the southwestern deserts in search of beaver pelts long before white settlers started to carve farms out of the wilderness. In the early 1800s, with the fur supply between the Appalachians and the Mississippi River depleted and settlements filling up the wilderness land, European fur trappers looked to the land beyond the Mississippi River. The Spanish, French, and British dominated the fur trade in this region when the United States purchased the Louisiana Territory from France in 1803. After the Louisiana Purchase, Americans began to hope that expanding their involvement in the fur trade would be good for the American economy. Keeping the fur trade in mind as they searched for the Northwest Passage, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark reported on the abundance of beavers along the western rivers and their tributaries. One of Lewis and Clark's traveling companions, John Colter (c. 1775-1813), became the first and one of the most famous American mountain men. Joining hunters Forest Hancock and Joseph Dickson as they explored the Rocky Mountains, Colter led a small American trapping party near present-day Yellowstone National Park. Later, in 1806, he led the first large fur-trading expedition to Yellowstone and became the first white man to see Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and the geysers and mudpots of Yellowstone National Park. Hundreds of trappers followed Colter as industrious Americans established new fur-trading companies. By 1810 Manuel Lisa, Andrew Henry, and Pierre Menard formed the Missouri Fur Company. Although Blackfoot Indians forced this company to abandon its efforts at the Three Forks of the Missouri River between the Jefferson and Madison Rivers, other trappers kept coming. In 1822 Andrew Henry and William H. Ashley established the Rocky Mountain Fur Company. The Rocky Mountain Fur Company's success in sending small parties of men to trap throughout the country and then gather once a year at a given place to sell pelts and buy supplies started the tradition of the yearly trappers' rendezvous (also sometimes called the mountain man rendezvous). The first rendezvous was held in 1825 on Henry's Fork of the Green River, where hundreds of trappers and friendly Indians gathered. Zenas Leonard left on his first trapping expedition in 1831. His narrative provides a glimpse into trappers' daily struggles and awesome adventures. Things to remember while reading the excerpt from Zenas Leonard Fur Trader: The fur trade dominated commerce in St. Louis when the United States purchased the Louisiana Territory in 1803. In 1804 St. Louis had a population of about one thousand people. Zenas Leonard began his trapping career with the Gantt and Blackwell Company in 1831, but the company dissolved within a year. Leonard was a free trapper for a little more than a year before joining Captain Benjamin L. E. de Bonneville's group, which lasted until Leonard's return home in 1835. Excerpt from Zenas Leonard Fur Trader Of the adventures of a company of 70 men, who left St. Louis in the spring of 1831, on an expedition to the Rocky Mountains, for the purpose of trapping for furs, and trading with the Indians, by one of the company, MR. ZENAS LEONARD, of Clearfield County, Pa.—comprising a minute description of the incidents of the adventure, and a valuable history of this immense territory—not from maps and charts, but from personal observation. The company under the command of Captains Gant and Blackwell, left St. Louis on the 24th of April, 1831. Each man was furnished with the necessary equipments for the expedition—such as traps, guns, &c.; also horses and goods of various descriptions, to trade with the Indians for furs and buffalo robes. We continued our journey in a western direction, in the state of Missouri, on the south side of the Missouri river, through a country thinly inhabited by the whites and friendly Indians, until we arrived at Fort Osage the extreme point of the white settlement. Here we remained several days and purchased and packed up a sufficiency of provision, as we then thought, for our subsistence through the wilderness to what is called the buffalo country; a distance of about two hundred miles. From thence we proceeded up the Missouri until we arrived at the mouth of the Kanzas river, where we again tarried two or three days, for the purpose of trading some goods to the Kanzas Indians for corn, moccasins, &c. This tribe of Indians live in small huts, built of poles, covered with straw and dirt, and in shape similar to a potato hole. They cultivate the soil quite extensively, and raise very good corn, pumpkins, beans and other vegetables. The principal chief is called "White Ploom."—The nation is supposed to contain eight hundred warriors. From thence we proceeded on our journey up the river. We found the country here beautiful indeed—abounding with the most delightful prairies, with here and there a small brook, winding its way to the river, the margins of which are adorned with the lofty pine and cedar tree. These prairies were completely covered with fine low grass, and decorated with beautiful flowers of various colors; and some of them are so extensive and clear of timber and brush that the eye might search in vain for an object to rest upon. I have seen beautiful and enchanting sceneries depicted by the artist, but never anything to equal the work of rude nature in those prairies. In the spring of the year when the grass is green and the blossoms fresh, they present an appearance, which for beauty and charms, is beyond the art of man to depict.... ....Several scouting parties were sent out in search of beaver signs, who returned in a few days and reported that they had found beaver signs, &c. Captain Gant then gave orders to make preparations for trapping. Accordingly the company was divided into parties of fifteen to twenty men in each party, with their respective captains placed over them—and directed by Captain Gant in what direction to go. Captain Washburn ascended the Timber Fork; Captain Stephens the Laramies; Captain Gant the Sweet Water—all of which empty into the river Platte near the same place. Each of these companies were directed to ascend these rivers until they found beaver sufficiently plenty for trapping, or till the snow and cold weather Zenas Leonard Born March 19, 1809, at the mouth of Clearfield Creek in Pennsylvania, Zenas Leonard had the genes of an adventurer. His grandfather had immigrated to the British colonies from Ireland before the Revolutionary War. Trading with the Native Americans for a time to earn his living, he later settled into farming. Zenas's father, Abraham, carved out a farm on the frontier for his nine children and his wife Elizabeth. Zenas Leonard was uninterested in making his living "picking stones"—as he described farming—and decided to see what the city could offer. Leonard left his family's home in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania, and walked to Pittsburgh in the spring of 1830, where he worked for a time as a clerk in his uncle's store. In the city, he heard stories of the fur trade. Leonard soon left for St. Louis, the central point of the fur trade, to try his luck in that adventurous industry. As a clerk for Gantt and Blackwell, a trapping company with aspirations of competing with the Rocky Mountain Fur Company and the American Fur Company, Leonard got his first taste of the fur trade. He left on his first expedition on April 24, 1831. His narrative describes his adventurous four years in the Rocky Mountains as a clerk and trapper. When Leonard returned to his family's home nearly five years after leaving, his friends and neighbors couldn't hear enough about his adventures in the West. Leonard found himself telling his story over and over. Finally, he decided to write it down for one and all to read. Though much of the narrative was written from memory and from the diaries of traveling companions, the first publisher of Leonard's narrative, D. W. Moore, noted his faith in the truthfulness of Leonard's account: "[I]ndeed, among the many who heard the narrative from his own lips, we have yet to hear the first one say they disbelieve it. At all events, in its perusal, the reader will encounter no improbabilities, much less impossibilities:—hence it is but reasonable to suppose that in traversing such a wilderness as lays west of the Rocky Mountains, such hardships, privations and dangers as those described by Mr. Leonard, must necessarily be encountered." Published in 1839, Moore's testimony highlights this narrative's usefulness to those interested in exploring or settling the West. compelled them to stop; at which event they were to return to the mouth of the Laramies River, to pass the winter together. While at this place, engaged in secreting our merchandise, which we did by digging a hole in the ground sufficiently large to contain them, and covering them over so that the Indians might not discover them— four men (three whites and one Indian) came to our tent. This astonished us not a little, for a white man was the last of living beings that we expected to visit us in this vast wilderness—where nothing was heard from dark to daylight but the fierce and terrifying growls of wild beasts, and the more shrill cries of the merciless savages. The principal of these men was a Mr. Fitzpatrick, who had been engaged in trapping along the Columbia River, on the west side of the Rocky Mountains, and was then on his way to St. Louis. He was an old hand at the business and we expected to obtain some useful information from him, but we were disappointed. The selfishness of man is often disgraceful to human nature; and I never saw more striking evidence of this fact, than was presented in the conduct of this man Fitzpatrick. Notwithstanding we had treated him with great friendship and hospitality, merely because we were to engage in the same business with him, which he knew we never could exhaust or even impair—he refused to give us any information whatever, and appeared disposed to treat us as intruders. On the 3d of September, Captain Blackwell, with two others, joined Fitzpatrick, and started back to the state of Missouri, for an additional supply of merchandise, and were to return in the summer of 1832.... On New Years Day, notwithstanding our horses were nearly all dead, as being fully satisfied that the few that were yet living must die soon, we concluded to have a feast in our best style; for which purpose we made preparation by sending out four of our best hunters, to get a choice piece of meat for the occasion. These men killed ten buffalo, from which they selected one of the fattest humps they could find and brought in, and after roasting it handsomely before the fire, we all seated ourselves upon the ground, encircling, what we there called a splendid repast to dine upon. Feasting sumptuously, cracking a few jokes, taking a few rounds with our rifles, and wishing heartily for some liquor, having none at that place, we spent the day.... ....In the meantime, Smith, Fully, and myself were busily engaged in trapping on the tributary streams of the river Platte. We encountered much difficulty and danger in this excursion, from wild beasts and hostile Indians. One circumstance with a bear I must relate:—On a pleasant summer evening, when nothing seemed disposed to disturb the tranquility of our forest home, we built a fire under the cliff of a large rock, on the bank of a small creek, to roast some buffalo meat. After having cooked and eat our evening repast, I was standing close to the rock, apart from the other men ten or Fur traders were among the first whites to venture into the western territories. Native Americans sometimes resented the trappers intruding on their land. (© CORBIS. Reproduced by permission.) twelve feet—all at once one of them jumped up and ran off, exclaiming "the bear," "the bear!" I instantly cast my eyes to the top of the precipice, where they encountered this hideous monster seated on the rock with his mouth wide open, and his eyes sparkling like fire. My whole frame shook with agitation. I knew that to attempt to run would be certain death. My gun was standing against a tree within my reach, and after calling for the aid of my companions, I raised my rifle to my face and taking deliberate aim at the most fatal spot, fired—which brought Sir Bruin to the ground. In the meantime Smith and Fully came to my assistance, and also discharged the contents of their rifles into his head. In a few days afterwards we were joined by the rest of the company, who, having secreted the fur, &c., at the mouth of the Laramies River, had come in search of us. We now, for the first time, got a knowledge of the conduct of Stephens relative to our fur. The men informed us of the contract between them and Stephens. [Stephens had earlier guaranteed these men an equal share of the furs caught by Smith, Fully, and Leonard.] We answered that White fur traders visiting a Native American settlement; some early traders established peaceful relationships with various Indian tribes. (© Bettmann/Corbis. Reproduced by permission.) we could agree to no such contract—that the fur belonged to us, and that we intended to keep it. They then devised other means to secure their share of 150 beaver skins (the whole number we had caught). Stephens then told the men that he would not be accountable for any of the fur, and the only way to obtain any of it, was to take it by force. Seeing the folly of further resistance—18 against 3—we were obliged to surrender our earnings, which they took and divided equally among themselves. The next day we left this company at whose hands we had received such ill treatment, and returned to the mouth of the Laramies, with the expectation of meeting Captain Gant—but we were sadly mistaken—on our arrival there no traces of Capt. G.'s company could be discovered.... ....After traveling a few miles this morning, some of the men, in taking a view of the country before us, discovered something like people upon horses, who appeared to be coming toward us. After continuing in the same direction for some time we came in view with the naked eye, when we halted. They advanced towards us displaying a British flag. This we could not comprehend; but on coming closer discovered them to be hostile Indians. We immediately despatched a messenger back to the rendezvous for reinforcements and prepared ourselves for defense. The Indians commenced building a fort in the timber on the bank of the river; but at the time we were not aware of what they were doing. After waiting here a few hours we were reinforced by two hundred whites, two hundred Flatheads, and three hundred Nez Perces Indians. The Indians with the British flag, on seeing such a number of people galloping down the plain at full speed, immediately retreated within their fort, whither they were hotly pursued. The friendly Indians soon discovered them to belong to the Blackfeet tribe, who are decidedly the most numerous and warlike tribe in the mountains, and for this reason are not disposed to have any friendly intercourse with any other nation of an inferior number, unless they are good warriors and well armed with guns, &c. We thought we could rush right on them and drive them out of the brush into the plain and have a decisive battle at once. We advanced with all possible speed, and a full determination of success, until we discovered their fort by receiving a most destructive fire from the enclosure. This throwed our ranks into complete confusion, and we all retreated into the plain, with the loss of five whites, eight Flatheads and ten Nez Perces Indians killed, besides a large number of whites and Indians wounded. The formation of their fort astonished all hands. We had been within a few hundred yards of them all day and did not discover that they were building it. It was large enough to contain five hundred warriors; and built strong enough to resist almost any attempt we might make to force it. After dressing the wounded, and having reconnoitered their fort, our forces were divided into several detachments, and sent in different directions with the intention of surrounding the fort and making them prisoners. This was done under the superintendence of Fitzpatrick, who acted as commander-in-chief. In a case of this kind any man not evincing the greatest degree of courage and every symptom of bravery, is treated as a coward; and the person who advances first, furthest and fastest, and makes the greatest display of animal courage, soon rises in the estimation of his companions. Accordingly with the hope of gaining a little glory while an opportunity offered, though not for any electioneering purpose, as a politician in the States would do—I started into the brush, in company with two acquaintances (Smith and Kean) and two Indians. We made a circuitous route and came towards the fort from a direction which we thought we would be least expected. We advanced closer and closer, crawling upon our hands and knees, with the intention of giving them a select shot; and when within about forty yards of their breastwork, one of our Indians was shot dead. At this we all lay still for some time, but Smith's foot happening to shake the weeds as he was laying on his belly, was shot through. I advanced a little further, but finding the balls to pass too quick and close, concluded to retreat. When I turned, I found that my companions had deserted me. In passing by, Smith asked me to carry him out, which met my approbation precisely, for I was glad to get out of this unpleasant situation under any pretext—provided my reputation for courage would not be questioned. After getting him on my back, still crawling on my hands and knees, I came across Kean, lying near where the first Indian fell, who was mortally wounded and died soon after. I carried Smith to a place of safety and then returned to the siege. A continual fire was kept up, doing more or less execution on both sides until late in the afternoon, when we advanced to close quarters, having nothing but the thickness of their breastwork between us, and having them completely surrounded on all sides to prevent any escaping. This position we maintained until sunset, in the meantime having made preparations to set fire to the fort, which was built principally of old dry logs, as soon as night would set in, and stationed men at the point where we thought they would be most likely to make the first break, for the purpose of taking them on the wing, in their flight. Having made all these preparations, which were to put an end to all further molestation on the part of the Blackfeet, our whole scheme and contemplated victory was frustrated by a most ingenious and well executed device of the enemy. A few minutes before the torch was to be applied, our captives commenced the most tremendous yells and shouts of triumph, and menaces of defiance, which seemed to move heaven and earth. Quick as thought a report spread through all quarters, that the plain was covered with Blackfeet Indians coming to reinforce the besieged. So complete was the consternation in our ranks, created by this stratagem, that in five minutes afterward there was not a single white man, Flathead, or Nez Perces Indian within a hundred yards of the fort. Every man thought only of his own security and run for life without ever looking round, which would at once have convinced him of his folly. In a short time it was ascertained that it was only a stratagem, and our men began to collect together where our baggage was. I never shall forget the scene here exhibited. The rage of some was unbounded, and approached to madness. For my own part, although I felt much regret at the result after so much toil and danger, yet I could not but give the savages credit for the skill they displayed in preserving their lives, at the very moment when desperation, as we thought, had seized the mind of each of them. By the time we were made sensible of the full extent of our needless alarm, it had began to get dark; and on ascertaining the extent of the injury which we received (having lost 32 killed, principally Indians), it was determined not to again attempt to surround the fort, which was a sore disappointment to some of the men who were keen for chastising the Indians for their trick.... April 10th. Beaver we found in abundance—catching more or less every day, and everything seemed to promise a profitable business ... ... About the 10th of June we suspended our trapping and returned to Wind River, where we found Captain Bonneville and his men waiting for us according to appointment, at the mouth of Popoasia Creek. Here we encamped for a few days, until we could collect our peltries together and make a divide—having sent some of our men to bring our merchandise, &c., from the place where we had deposited it, who succeeded without any difficulty.... We now set about packing and sorting our furs, &c., and making arrangements for the ensuing year—such as paying off hands, hiring them for another term, and apportioning the different companies. Captain Walker, with fifty-nine men, was to continue trapping in this country for one year from this time, and Captain Bonneville, with the remainder, taking all the peltries we had collected, and which were packed upon horses and mules, was to go to the States and return in the summer of 1836, with as strong a force as he could collect, and a large supply of merchandise, and meet Captain Walker in this neighborhood. On parting this time, many of the men were at a loss to know what to do. Many were anxious to return to the States, but feared to do so, lest the offended law might hold them responsible for misdemeanors committed previous to their embarking in the trapping business, and others could not be persuaded to do so for any price—declaring that a civilized life had no charms for them. Although I intended to return to the mountains again, I was particularly anxious to first visit the States lest I should also forget the blessings of civilized society, and was very thankful when I found myself in Captain Bonneville's company, on the march towards the rising sun. As we traveled along we killed all the game we could, this being necessary, as provision is very scarce on the course we intended to pursue between the village of the Pawnee Indians and the white settlements. About the 25th of July we arrived on the Platte River, which we followed down until we arrived at the Pawnee Village, situated about one hundred and fifty miles from where the Platte River empties into the Missouri. After trading with these Indians for some corn, we left them and traveled rapidly every day until we arrived in Independence (Mo.), which is the extreme western white settlement, on the 29th of August, 1835—after being absent four years, four months, and five days. [Ewers, pp. 3-4, 8-9, 14, 27-28, 42-45, 58, 160-61] What happened next . . . By 1831 large numbers of free trappers as well as the American Fur Company competed for a share of the mountain fur trade. So many trappers combed the western rivers by 1839 that the scarcity of beavers made the mountain trappers' yearly rendezvous unprofitable. Within a few decades the American fur-trading industry had ended. Although the furs could no longer be found in sufficient abundance, the trappers' stories about the western regions continued to filter throughout the country. The U.S. government became curious about the potential for spreading settlements across the West and perhaps finding other natural sources of revenue. With their expert knowledge of the otherwise unknown reaches of the country, many of the trappers went on to act as guides for explorers who mapped the West or to lead overland wagon trains that began traveling across the Mississippi River. The mountain men's stories had sparked the imaginations of many curious and adventurous people, but the reports of government-sponsored explorers made the seemingly impossible real. The vivid descriptions of distant places enticed many to risk leaving the security of civilization to strike out on their own.

Bank of the United States

The Bank of the United States and the Second Bank of the United States were both attempts by Congress to establish a federal bank. The banks served as a depository for federal funds and acted as the government's agent in collecting customs fees and issuing bank notes, but they also supported businessmen as a commercial bank. Although both banks were eventually closed, each defined how a federally owned, central bank could stabilize America's economy. Charter Granted First Bank of the United StatesResponding to a request from Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, Congress chartered (incorporated) the Bank of the United States in 1791. The decision was a particularly controversial one for the new republic, and in fact served as a pivotal issue in the establishment of two political parties in the United States. Hamilton, the unofficial leader of the Federalists, believed the federal government should exercise broad political powers to stabilize and foster growth in the country, including taking an active role in managing the economy and the establishment of a national bank. The Antifederalists, led by Thomas Jefferson, disagreed; they advocated for a limited federal government and strong state and local governments. The notion of a central bank for the country was particularly abhorrent to them, as they supported the creation of state banks for what little management the economy required. The issue polarized the two parties and sparked much debate in Congress before Hamilton rallied enough support for the idea to secure the bank's charter. The charter authorized the Bank of the United States for an initial 20-year period and established its headquarters in Philadelphia. The central bank was both a government bank (regulating the flow of currency) and a commercial bank (holding deposits from both the government and businesses and lending money to them). The government provided one-fifth of the $10 million capital required to establish the bank and controlled one-fifth of the 25 seats on the bank's board of directors. Private investors provided the rest of the capital and controlled the remaining seats on the board. Over the bank's initial 20-year charter period, it collected the government's customs duties, lent the government more than $13 million, stabilized the country's currency by regulating the circulation of bank notes, and made a profit of $700,000. Despite this apparent success, there was much criticism of the bank and its policies, in part because of the diverse banking needs of the country. The commercial, industrial Northeast needed short-term loans (usually repaid within one or two months) to finance production ventures and ease cash-flow problems. The more agriculturally based South and West, however, required long-term loans (usually repaid over the course of one or more years) to finance significant investments in property, equipment, and seeds for farming. As the bank's funding was insufficient to meet the needs of all, it usually favored the Northeast to the growing dismay of the South and West. Bank Closure By 1811 (when the bank's charter was due to expire), the South and West's disenchantment with the bank had made itself felt in Congress. In addition, President James Madison and most of the country were firm adherents of Jefferson's views regarding the role of the federal government in regulating the economy. Hence, Congress decided (by only one vote) not to renew the bank's charter, and the Bank of the United States closed its doors that same year. The closure the Bank of the United States had a profound impact on the national economy, initiating a disastrous economic cycle that plagued the country for the next decade. First, the supply of federally secured bank notes dried up, and as the federal government was no longer capable of issuing currency, there was not enough money in circulation to support the growing country. The currency shortage encouraged state-chartered banks and private banks to issue their own bank notes, secured only by the money they held in reserve. Many of these banks recklessly created bank notes beyond their reserves, which inflated the economy. Inflation reduced the value of the bank notes in circulation, causing the notes to lose value and circulate below the value printed on the face of the note. Such discounting led to speculation in notes and more discounting, sometimes to below half of the face value of the notes, a cycle that continued until banks went bankrupt—which led to an economic depression. Government borrowing during the War of 1812 exacerbated the banking situation. Nicholas BiddleSecond Bank Opens In desperation, Congress explored the need for a central bank once again and in 1816, chartered the Second Bank of the United States for a 20-year period. As with the first bank, the government provided one-fifth of the capital required to establish the bank ($35 million this time) and controlled one-fifth of the 25 seats on the bank's board of directors, with private investors picking up the rest. Initially, the bank struggled, primarily because of the deep economic depression gripping America. In addition, the bank committed many of the state and private banks' mistakes regarding note speculation and thus contributed to the country's financial instability. In contrast to the first Bank of the United States, the bank supported the agricultural South and the West, ignoring the businessmen in the Northeast and making many enemies in this region. By 1819, the situation had become desperate. Langdon Cheves was brought in first as a member of the board of directors and then became president of the bank on March 6 of that same year. In the midst of the depression, Cheves restored the bank to solvency, primarily by raising interest rates and reducing both the number of loans and the amount of currency in circulation. These measures saved the bank from disaster but also worsened the country's economic situation, at least for a time. In 1823, Nicholas Biddle succeeded Cheves as president of the Second Bank of the United States. Biddle changed the bank's focus back to the conservative approaches that favored the Northeast to the detriment of the speculative South and West. His strategy improved America's financial condition and stabilized the money supply, although it stifled growth in the South and West. Andrew Jackson Opposes Bank In 1829, the election of Andrew Jackson as president of the United States brought the bank to the center of Americans' attention. As a Southerner and a strong believer in Jefferson's state-oriented view of government, Jackson was an outspoken enemy of the bank, although he refrained from meddling in the bank's affairs during his first term. Biddle made a major tactical blunder in 1832, however, by calling for Congress to renew the charter for the Second Bank of the United States for another 20 years—four years earlier than necessary. Despite growing national resentment of the bank, Congress approved the renewal but Jackson vetoed it and made the bank the major issue of his reelection campaign later that year. Jackson's Bank War, as it came to be called, quickly became an extremely divisive partisan issue, with Democrats supporting Jackson and Whigs supporting the bank. The controversy continued after Jackson won reelection, as the president and Congress battled over the issue. Exercising his executive power, Jackson quietly began removing federal deposits from the bank and placing them in state-chartered banks that became known as Jackson's "pet banks." When the bank's charter expired in 1836, it was forced to close its doors once again. Biddle reopened the bank as a state bank that same year. Although the bank was initially successful, it failed in 1841 after investing in a speculative cotton venture that failed. The dissolution of the Second Bank of the United States in 1836 sparked another disastrous economic cycle for the country. By 1837, wild speculation, fueled mostly by inflated bank notes, initiated a serious financial depression. Without a central bank to stabilize the currency, the depression ran its course well into the mid-1840s. Wild swings in currency values continued intermittently until 1863, when Congress passed the National Currency Act, requiring that all currency, including bank notes, be backed by the U.S. Treasury. Finally in 1913, Congress formed the Federal Reserve System, giving the United States a federally owned, central bank.

Nullification Crisis

The nullification crisis grew out of a conflict between South Carolina and the federal government when the U.S. Congress passed a tariff act in 1832. South Carolina perceived the act as unconstitutional and its state legislature nullified the act, advancing the idea that the state did not have to follow federal law. Unresolved Constitutional Issues Ratification of the U.S. Constitution (1787) left unresolved the issue of whether the federal or state governments were sovereign. Some assumed that the federal government was a subordinate creation of the states, which reserved the power to render null and void any federal law. In 1832, to resist the enactment of a protective tariff and to affirm states' rights, Vice President John C. Calhoun resigned his position and returned to South Carolina, which nullified the tariff. After the federal government threatened to use force, Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky worked out a compromise that allowed the sectional crisis to cool. Imposing tariffs was a federal power based on the constitutional power to raise revenue. The U.S. Congress began using it in 1824 to protect the newly emerging industries of the northeast. (Protective tariffs were also a component of Clay's "American System," which aimed to tie disparate U.S. regions together through internal improvements.) In 1828, Congress passed a highly protective tariff, which its opponents dubbed the Tariff of Abominations. Southern Concerns Robert Y. HayneAs agricultural exporters and importers of finished products, Southerners objected to the fact that the protective tariff raised the costs of their purchases and reduced their volume of exports. Southerners also understood that a federal government that could impose an unacceptable law had the potential to impose the most unacceptable of all, an outlawing of slavery. Southerners like South Carolina senator Robert Y. Hayne and Calhoun promptly raised questions about the tariff's constitutionality and claimed the right of a state to nullify an unacceptable federal law. They cited James Madison's Virginia Resolution and Thomas Jefferson's Kentucky Resolution, written during the debates over the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. In January 1830, a series of debates between Hayne and Daniel Webster defined the terms of the argument over the nature of the federal union that would persist for the next 30 years. In 1832, Andrew Jackson won the presidency with Calhoun as his vice president. At a Jefferson Day celebration, Jackson toasted, "Our Federal Union—it must be preserved." Calhoun responded, "The Union—next to our liberty most dear." Clay's Compromise When Jackson signed the modified Tariff Act of 1832, Calhoun resigned in protest and went to South Carolina to interpose the state against federal enforcement of the tariff. Congress passed the Force Act, and Jackson threatened to send troops to enforce the tariff. Clay averted a collision by enacting a compromise that produced a degree of tariff reduction in 1833. Sectional tension, however, remained and would eventually culminate in the Civil War, the victory of the Jackson-Webster definition of the Union, and the domination of the industrial region over the agricultural sector.

Andrew Jackson's Proclamation Regarding Nullification

Whereas a convention, assembled in the State of South Carolina, have passed an ordinance, by which they declare that the several acts and parts of acts of the Congress of the United States, purporting to be laws for the imposing of duties and imposts on the importation of foreign commodities, and now having actual operation and effect within the United States, and more especially "two acts for the same purposes, passed on the 29th of May, 1828, and on the 14th of July, 1832, are unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States, and violate the true meaning and intent thereof, and are null and void, and no law," nor binding on the citizens of that State or its officers, and by the said ordinance it is further declared to he unlawful for any of the constituted authorities of the State, or of the United States, to enforce the payment of the duties imposed by the said acts within the same State, and that it is the duty of the legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to give full effect to the said ordinances: And whereas, by the said ordinance it is further ordained, that, in no case of law or equity, decided in the courts of said State, wherein shall be drawn in question the validity of the said ordinance, or of the acts of the legislature that may be passed to give it effect, or of the said laws of the United States, no appeal shall be allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States, nor shall any copy of the record be permitted or allowed for that purpose; and that any person attempting to take such appeal, shall be punished as for a contempt of court: And, finally, the said ordinance declares that the people of South Carolina will maintain the said ordinance at every hazard, and that they will consider the passage of any act by Congress abolishing or closing the ports of the said State, or otherwise obstructing the free ingress or egress of vessels to and from the said ports, or any other act of the Federal Government to coerce the State, shut up her ports, destroy or harass her commerce, or to enforce the said acts otherwise than through the civil tribunals of the country, as inconsistent with the longer continuance of South Carolina in the Union; and that the people of the said State will thenceforth hold themselves absolved from all further obligation to maintain or preserve their political connection with the people of the other States, and will forthwith proceed to organize a separate government, and do all other acts and things which sovereign and independent States may of right do. And whereas the said ordinance prescribes to the people of South Carolina a course of conduct in direct violation of their duty as citizens of the United States, contrary to the laws of their country, subversive of its Constitution, and having for its object the instruction of the Union-that Union, which, coeval with our political existence, led our fathers, without any other ties to unite them than those of patriotism and common cause, through the sanguinary struggle to a glorious independence-that sacred Union, hitherto inviolate, which, perfected by our happy Constitution, has brought us, by the favor of Heaven, to a state of prosperity at home, and high consideration abroad, rarely, if ever, equaled in the history of nations; to preserve this bond of our political existence from destruction, to maintain inviolate this state of national honor and prosperity, and to justify the confidence my fellow-citizens have reposed in me, I, Andrew Jackson, President of the United States, have thought proper to issue this my PROCLAMATION, stating my views of the Constitution and laws applicable to the measures adopted by the Convention of South Carolina, and to the reasons they have put forth to sustain them, declaring the course which duty will require me to pursue, and, appealing to the understanding and patriotism of the people, warn them of the consequences that must inevitably result from an observance of the dictates of the Convention. Strict duty would require of me nothing more than the exercise of those powers with which I am now, or may hereafter be, invested, for preserving the Union, and for the execution of the laws. But the imposing aspect which opposition has assumed in this case, by clothing itself with State authority, and the deep interest which the people of the United States must all feel in preventing a resort to stronger measures, while there is a hope that anything will be yielded to reasoning and remonstrances, perhaps demand, and will certainly justify, a full exposition to South Carolina and the nation of the views I entertain of this important question, as well as a distinct enunciation of the course which my sense of duty will require me to pursue. The ordinance is founded, not on the indefeasible right of resisting acts which are plainly unconstitutional, and too oppressive to be endured, but on the strange position that any one State may not only declare an act of Congress void, but prohibit its execution- that they may do this consistently with the Constitution-that the true construction of that instrument permits a State to retain its place in the Union, and yet be bound by no other of its laws than those it may choose to consider as constitutional. It is true they add, that to justify this abrogation of a law, it must be palpably contrary to the Constitution, but it is evident, that to give the right of resisting laws of that description, coupled with the uncontrolled right to decide what laws deserve that character, is to give the power of resisting all laws. For, as by the theory, there is no appeal, the reasons alleged by the State, good or bad, must prevail. If it should be said that public opinion is a sufficient check against the abuse of this power, it may be asked why it is not deemed a sufficient guard against the passage of an unconstitutional act by Congress. There is, however, a restraint in this last case, which makes the assumed power of a State more indefensible, and which does not exist in the other. There are two appeals from an unconstitutional act passed by Congress-one to the judiciary, the other to the people and the States. There is no appeal from the State decision in theory; and the practical illustration shows that the courts are closed against an application to review it, both judges and jurors being sworn to decide in its favor. But reasoning on this subject is superfluous, when our social compact in express terms declares, that the laws of the United States, its Constitution, and treaties made under it, are the supreme law of the land; and for greater caution adds, "that the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." And it may be asserted, without fear of refutation, that no federative government could exist without a similar provision. Look, for a moment, to the consequence. If South Carolina considers the revenue laws unconstitutional, and has a right to prevent their execution in the port of Charleston, there would be a clear constitutional objection to their collection in every other port, and no revenue could be collected anywhere; for all imposts must be equal. It is no answer to repeat that an unconstitutional law is no law, so long as the question of its legality is to be decided by the State itself, for every law operating injuriously upon any local interest will be perhaps thought, and certainly represented, as unconstitutional, and, as has been shown, there is no appeal. If this doctrine had been established at an earlier day, the Union would have been dissolved in its infancy. The excise law in Pennsylvania, the embargo and non-intercourse law in the Eastern States, the carriage tax in Virginia, were all deemed unconstitutional, and were more unequal in their operation than any of the laws now complained of; but, fortunately, none of those States discovered that they had the right now claimed by South Carolina. The war into which we were forced, to support the dignity of the nation and the rights of our citizens, might have ended in defeat and disgrace instead of victory and honor, if the States, who supposed it a ruinous and unconstitutional measure, had thought they possessed the right of nullifying the act by which it was declared, and denying supplies for its prosecution. Hardly and unequally as those measures bore upon several members of the Union, to the legislatures of none did this efficient and peaceable remedy, as it is called, suggest itself. The discovery of this important feature in our Constitution was reserved to the present day. To the statesmen of South Carolina belongs the invention, and upon the citizens of that State will, unfortunately, fall the evils of reducing it to practice. If the doctrine of a State veto upon the laws of the Union carries with it internal evidence of its impracticable absurdity, our constitutional history will also afford abundant proof that it would have been repudiated with indignation had it been proposed to form a feature in our Government. In our colonial state, although dependent on another power, we very early considered ourselves as connected by common interest with each other. Leagues were formed for common defense, and before the Declaration of Independence, we were known in our aggregate character as the United Colonies of America. That decisive and important step was taken jointly. We declared ourselves a nation by a joint, not by several acts; and when the terms of our confederation were reduced to form, it was in that of a solemn league of several States, by which they agreed that they would, collectively, form one nation, for the purpose of conducting some certain domestic concerns, and all foreign relations. In the instrument forming that Union, is found an article which declares that "every State shall abide by the determinations of Congress on all questions which by that Confederation should be submitted to them." Under the Confederation, then, no State could legally annul a decision of the Congress, or refuse to submit to its execution, but no provision was made to enforce these decisions. Congress made requisitions, but they were not complied with. The Government could not operate on individuals. They had no judiciary, no means of collecting revenue. But the defects of the Confederation need not be detailed. Under its operation we could scarcely be called a nation. We had neither prosperity at home nor consideration abroad. This state of things could not be endured, and our present happy Constitution was formed, but formed in vain, if this fatal doctrine prevails. It was formed for important objects that are announced in the preamble made in the name and by the authority of the people of the United States, whose delegates framed, and whose conventions approved it. The most important among these objects, that which is placed first in rank, on which all the others rest, is "to form a more perfect Union." Now, is it possible that, even if there were no express provision giving supremacy to the Constitution and laws of the United States over those of the States, it can be conceived that an Instrument made for the purpose of "forming; a more perfect Union" than that of the confederation, could be so constructed by the assembled wisdom of our country as to substitute for that confederation a form of government, dependent for its existence on the local interest, the party spirit of a State, or of a prevailing faction in a State? Every man, of plain, unsophisticated understanding, who hears the question, will give such an answer as will preserve the Union. Metaphysical subtlety, in pursuit of an impracticable theory, could alone have devised one that is calculated to destroy it. I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed. After this general view of the leading principle, we must examine the particular application of it which is made in the ordinance. The preamble rests its justification on these grounds: It assumes as a fact, that the obnoxious laws, although they purport to be laws for raising revenue, were in reality intended for the protection of manufactures, which purpose it asserts to be unconstitutional; that the operation of these laws is unequal, that the amount raised by them is greater than is required by the wants of the Government; and, finally, that the proceeds are to be applied to objects unauthorized by the Constitution. These are the only causes alleged to justify an open opposition to the laws of the country, and a threat of seceding from the Union, if any attempt should be made to enforce them. The first virtually acknowledges that the law in question was passed under a power expressly given by the Constitution, to lay and collect imposts, but its constitutionality is drawn in question from the motives of those who passed it. However apparent this purpose may be in the present case, nothing can be more dangerous than to admit the position that an unconstitutional purpose, entertained by the members who assent to a law enacted under a constitutional power, shall make that law void; for how is that purpose to be ascertained? Who is to make the scrutiny? How often may bad purposes be falsely imputed ? In how many cases are they concealed by false professions? In how many is no declaration of motive made? Admit this doctrine and you give to the States an uncontrolled right to decide, and every law may be annulled under this pretext. If, therefore, the absurd and dangerous doctrine should be admitted, that a State may annul an unconstitutional law, or one that it deems such, it will not apply to the present case. The next objection is, that the laws in question operate unequally. This objection may be made with truth to every law that has been or can be passed. The wisdom of man never yet contrived a system of taxation that would operate with perfect equality. If the unequal operation of a law makes it unconstitutional and if all laws of that description may be abrogated by any State for that cause, then, indeed, is the federal Constitution unworthy of the slightest effort for its preservation. We have hitherto relied on it as the perpetual bond of our Union. We have received it as the work of the assembled wisdom of the nation We have trusted to it as to the sheet-anchor of our safety, in the stormy times of conflict with a foreign or domestic foe. We have looked to it with sacred awe as the palladium of our liberties, and with all the solemnities of religion have pledged to each other our lives and fortunes here, and our hopes of happiness hereafter, in its defense and support. Were we mistaken, my countrymen, in attaching this importance to the Constitution of our country? Was our devotion paid to the wretched, inefficient, clumsy contrivance, which this new doctrine would make it? Did we pledge ourselves to the support of an airy nothing-a bubble that must be blown away by the first breath of disaffection? Was this self-destroying, visionary theory the work of the profound statesmen, the exalted patriots, to whom the task of constitutional reform was intrusted? Did the name of Washington sanction, did the States deliberately ratify, such an anomaly in the history of fundamental legislation? No. We were not mistaken. The letter of this great instrument is free from this radical fault; its language directly contradicts the imputation, its spirit, its evident intent, contradicts it. No, we did not err. Our Constitution does not contain the absurdity of giving power to make laws, and another power to resist them. The sages, whose memory will always be reverenced, have given us a practical, and, as they hoped, a permanent constitutional compact. The Father of his Country did not affix his revered name to so palpable an absurdity. Nor did the States, when they severally ratified it, do so under the impression that a veto on the laws of the United States was reserved to them, or that they could exercise it by application. Search the debates in all their conventions-examine the speeches of the most zealous opposers of federal authority-look at the amendments that were proposed. They are all silent--not a syllable uttered, not a vote given, not a motion made, to correct the explicit supremacy given to the laws of the Union over those of the States, or to show that implication, as is now contended, could defeat it. No, we have not erred! The Constitution is still the object of our reverence, the bond of our Union, our defense in danger, the source of our prosperity in peace. It shall descend, as we have received it, uncorrupted by sophistical construction to our posterity; and the sacrifices of local interest, of State prejudices, of personal animosities, that were made to bring it into existence, will again be patriotically offered for its support. The two remaining objections made by the ordinance to these laws are, that the sums intended to be raised by them are greater than are required, and that the proceeds will be unconstitutionally employed. The Constitution has given expressly to Congress the right of raising revenue, and of determining the sum the public exigencies will require. The States have no control over the exercise of this right other than that which results from the power of changing the representatives who abuse it, and thus procure redress. Congress may undoubtedly abuse this discretionary power, but the same may be said of others with which they are vested. Yet the discretion must exist somewhere. The Constitution has given it to the representatives of all the people, checked by the representatives of the States, and by the executive power. The South Carolina construction gives it to the legislature, or the convention of a single State, where neither the people of the different States, nor the States in their separate capacity, nor the chief magistrate elected by the people, have any representation. Which is the most discreet disposition of the power? I do not ask you, fellow-citizens, which is the constitutional disposition-that instrument speaks a language not to be misunderstood. But if you were assembled in general convention, which would you think the safest depository of this discretionary power in the last resort? Would you add a clause giving it to each of the States, or would you sanction the wise provisions already made by your Constitution? If this should be the result of your deliberations when providing for the future, are you-can you-be ready to risk all that we hold dear, to establish, for a temporary and a local purpose, that which you must acknowledge to be destructive, and even absurd, as a general provision? Carry out the consequences of this right vested in the different States, and you must perceive that the crisis your conduct presents at this day would recur whenever any law of the United States displeased any of the States, and that we should soon cease to be a nation. The ordinance with the same knowledge of the future that characterizes a former objection, tells you that the proceeds of the tax will be unconstitutionally applied. If this could be ascertained with certainty, the objection would, with more propriety, be reserved for the law so applying the proceeds, but surely cannot be urged against the laws levying the duty. These are the allegations contained in the ordinance. Examine them seriously, my fellow-citizens-judge for yourselves. I appeal to you to determine whether they are so clear, so convincing, as to leave no doubt of their correctness, and even if you should come to this conclusion, how far they justify the reckless, destructive course which you are directed to pursue. Review these objections and the conclusions drawn from them once more. What are they! Every law, then, for raising revenue, according to the South Carolina ordinance, may be rightfully annulled, unless it be so framed as no law ever will or can be framed. Congress have a right to pass laws for raising revenue, and each State has a right to oppose their execution-two rights directly opposed to each other; and yet is this absurdity supposed to be contained in an instrument drawn for the express purpose of avoiding collisions between the States and the general government, by an assembly of the most enlightened statesmen and purest patriots ever embodied for a similar purpose. In vain have these sages declared that Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises-in vain have they provided that they shall have power to pass laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry those powers into execution, that those laws and that Constitution shall be the "supreme law of the land; that the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." In vain have the people of the several States solemnly sanctioned these provisions, made them their paramount law, and individually sworn to support them whenever they were called on to execute any office.. Vain provisions! Ineffectual restrictions! Vile profanation of oaths! Miserable mockery of legislation ! If a bare majority of the voters in any one State may, on a real or supposed knowledge of the intent with which a law has been passed, declare themselves free from its operation-say here it gives too little, there too much, and operates unequally-here it suffers articles to be free that ought to be taxed, there it taxes those that ought to be free-in this case the proceeds are intended to be applied to purposes which we do not approve, in that the amount raised is more than is wanted. Congress, it is true, are invested by the Constitution with the right of deciding these questions according to their sound discretion. Congress is composed of the representatives of all the States, and of all the people of all the states; but WE, part of the people of one State, to whom the Constitution has given no power on the subject from whom it has expressly taken it away-we, who have solemnly agreed that this Constitution shall be our law-we, most of whom have sworn to support it-we now abrogate this law, and swear, and force others to swear, that it shall not be obeyed-and we do this, not because Congress have no right to pass such laws; this we do not allege; but because they have passed them with improper views. They are unconstitutional from the motives of those who passed them, which we can never with certainty know, from their unequal operation; although it is impossible from the nature of things that they should be equal-and from the disposition which we presume may be made of their proceeds, although that disposition has not been declared. This is the plain meaning of the ordinance in relation to laws which it abrogates for alleged unconstitutionality. But it does not stop here. It repeals, in express terms, an important part of the Constitution itself, and of laws passed to give it effect, which have never been alleged to be unconstitutional. The Constitution declares that the judicial powers of the United States extend to cases arising under the laws of the United States, and that such laws, the Constitution and treaties, shall be paramount to the State constitutions and laws. The judiciary act prescribes the mode by which the case may be brought before a court of the United States, by appeal, when a State tribunal shall decide against this provision of the Constitution. The ordinance declares there shall be no appeal; makes the State law paramount to the Constitution and laws of the United States; forces judges and jurors to swear that they will disregard their provisions; and even makes it penal in a suitor to attempt relief by appeal. It further declares that it shall not be lawful for the authorities of the United States, or of that State, to enforce the payment of duties imposed by the revenue laws within its limits. Here is a law of the United States, not even pretended to be unconstitutional, repealed by the authority of a small majority of the voters of a single State. Here is a provision of the Constitution which is solemnly abrogated by the same authority. On such expositions and reasonings, the ordinance grounds not only an assertion of the right to annul the laws of which it complains, but to enforce it by a threat of seceding from the Union if any attempt is made to execute them. This right to secede is deduced from the nature of the Constitution, which they say is a compact between sovereign States who have preserved their whole sovereignty, and therefore are subject to no superior; that because they made the compact, they can break it when in their opinion it has been departed from by the other States. Fallacious as this course of reasoning is, it enlists State pride, and finds advocates in the honest prejudices of those who have not studied the nature of our government sufficiently to see the radical error on which it rests. The people of the United States formed the Constitution, acting through the State legislatures, in making the compact, to meet and discuss its provisions, and acting in separate conventions when they ratified those provisions; but the terms used in its construction show it to be a government in which the people of all the States collectively are represented. We are ONE PEOPLE in the choice of the President and Vice President. Here the States have no other agency than to direct the mode in which the vote shall be given. The candidates having the majority of all the votes are chosen. The electors of a majority of States may have given their votes for one candidate, and yet another may be chosen. The people, then, and not the States, are represented in the executive branch. In the House of Representatives there is this difference, that the people of one State do not, as in the case of President and Vice President, all vote for all the members, each State electing only its own representatives. But this creates no material distinction. When chosen, they are all representatives of the United States, not representatives of the particular State from which they come. They are paid by the United States, not by the State; nor are they accountable to it for any act done in performance of their legislative functions; and however they may in practice, as it is their duty to do, consult and prefer the interests of their particular constituents when they come in conflict with any other partial or local interest, yet it is their first and highest duty, as representatives of the United States, to promote the general good. The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, not a league, and whether it be formed by compact between the States, or in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a government in which ale the people are represented, which operates directly on the people individually, not upon the States; they retained all the power they did not grant. But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure. Because the Union was formed by compact, it is said the parties to that compact may, when they feel themselves aggrieved, depart from it; but it is precisely because it is a compact that they cannot. A compact is an agreement or binding obligation. It may by its terms have a sanction or penalty for its breach, or it may not. If it contains no sanction, it may be broken with no other consequence than moral guilt; if it have a sanction, then the breach incurs the designated or implied penalty. A league between independent nations, generally, has no sanction other than a moral one; or if it should contain a penalty, as there is no common superior, it cannot be enforced. A government, on the contrary, always has a sanction, express or implied; and, in our case, it is both necessarily implied and expressly given. An attempt by force of arms to destroy a government is an offense, by whatever means the constitutional compact may have been formed; and such government has the right, by the law of self-defense, to pass acts for punishing the offender, unless that right is modified, restrained, or resumed by the constitutional act. In our system, although it is modified in the case of treason, yet authority is expressly given to pass all laws necessary to carry its powers into effect, and under this grant provision has been made for punishing acts which obstruct the due administration of the laws. It would seem superfluous to add anything to show the nature of that union which connects us; but as erroneous opinions on this subject are the foundation of doctrines the most destructive to our peace, I must give some further development to my views on this subject. No one, fellow-citizens, has a higher reverence for the reserved rights of the States than the magistrate who now addresses you. No one would make greater personal sacrifices, or official exertions, to defend them from violation; but equal care must be taken to prevent, on their part, an improper interference with, or resumption of, the rights they have vested in the nation. The line has not been so distinctly drawn as to avoid doubts in some cases of the exercise of power. Men of the best intentions and soundest views may differ in their construction of some parts of the Constitution, but there are others on which dispassionate reflection can leave no doubt. Of this nature appears to be the assumed right of secession. It rests, as we have seen, on the alleged undivided sovereignty of the States, and on their having formed in this sovereign capacity a compact which is called the Constitution, from which, because they made it, they have the right to secede. Both of these positions are erroneous, and some of the arguments to prove them so have been anticipated. The States severally have not retained their entire sovereignty. It has been shown that in becoming parts of a nation, not members of a league, they surrendered many of their essential parts of sovereignty. The right to make treaties, declare war, levy taxes, exercise exclusive judicial and legislative powers, were all functions of sovereign power. The States, then, for all these important purposes, were no longer sovereign. The allegiance of their citizens was transferred in the first instance to the government of the United States; they became American citizens, and owed obedience to the Constitution of the United States, and to laws made in conformity with the powers vested in Congress. This last position has not been, and cannot be, denied. How then, can that State be said to be sovereign and independent whose citizens owe obedience to laws not made by it, and whose magistrates are sworn to disregard those laws, when they come in conflict with those passed by another? What shows conclusively that the States cannot be said to have reserved an undivided sovereignty, is that they expressly ceded the right to punish treason-not treason against their separate power, but treason against the United States. Treason is an offense against sovereignty, and sovereignty must reside with the power to punish it. But the reserved rights of the States are not less sacred because they have for their common interest made the general government the depository of these powers. The unity of our political character (as has been shown for another purpose) commenced with its very existence. Under the royal government we had no separate character; our opposition to its oppression began as UNITED COLONIES. We were the UNITED STATES under the Confederation, and the name was perpetuated and the Union rendered more perfect by the federal Constitution. In none of these stages did we consider ourselves in any other light than as forming one nation. Treaties and alliances were made in the name of all. Troops were raised for the joint defense. How, then, with all these proofs, that under all changes of our position we had, for designated purposes and with defined powers, created national governments-how is it that the most perfect of these several modes of union should now be considered as a mere league that may be dissolved at pleasure ? It is from an abuse of terms. Compact is used as synonymous with league, although the true term is not employed, because it would at once show the fallacy of the reasoning. It would not do to say that our Constitution was only a league, but it is labored to prove it a compact (which, in one sense, it is), and then to argue that as a league is a compact, every compact between nations must, of course, be a league, and that from such an engagement every sovereign power has a right to recede. But it has been shown that in this sense the States are not sovereign, and that even if they were, and the national Constitution had been formed by compact, there would be no right in any one State to exonerate itself from the obligation. So obvious are the reasons which forbid this secession, that it is necessary only to allude to them. The Union was formed for the benefit of all. It was produced by mutual sacrifice of interest and opinions. Can those sacrifices be recalled? Can the States, who magnanimously surrendered their title to the territories of the West, recall the grant? Will the inhabitants of the inland States agree to pay the duties that may be imposed without their assent by those on the Atlantic or the Gulf, for their own benefit? Shall there be a free port in one State, and enormous duties in another? No one believes that any right exists in a single State to involve all the others in these and countless other evils, contrary to engagements solemnly made. Everyone must see that the other States, in self-defense, must oppose it at all hazards. These are the alternatives that are presented by the convention: A repeal of all the acts for raising revenue, leaving the government without the means of support; or an acquiescence in the dissolution of our Union by the secession of one of its members. When the first was proposed, it was known that it could not be listened to for a moment. It was known if force was applied to oppose the execution of the laws, that it must be repelled by force-that Congress could not, without involving itself in disgrace and the country in ruin, accede to the proposition; and yet if this is not done in a given day, or if any attempt is made to execute the laws, the State is, by the ordinance, declared to be out of the Union. The majority of a convention assembled for the purpose have dictated these terms, or rather this rejection of all terms, in the name of the people of South Carolina. It is true that the governor of the State speaks of the submission of their grievances to a convention of all the States; which, he says, they ''sincerely and anxiously seek and desire." Yet this obvious and constitutional mode of obtaining the sense of the other States on the construction of the federal compact, and amending it, if necessary, has never been attempted by those who have urged the State on to this destructive measure. The State might have proposed a call for a general convention to the other States, and Congress, if a sufficient number of them concurred, must have called it. But the first magistrate of South Carolina, when he expressed a hope that "on a review by Congress and the functionaries of the general government of the merits of the controversy,' such a convention will be accorded to them, must have known that neither Congress, nor any functionary in the general government, has authority to call such a convention, unless it be demanded by two-thirds of the States. This suggestion, then, is another instance of the reckless inattention to the provisions of the Constitution with which this crisis has been madly hurried on; or of the attempt to persuade the people that a constitutional remedy has been sought and refused. If the legislature of South Carolina "anxiously desire" a general convention to consider their complaints, why have they not made application for it in the way the Constitution points out? The assertion that they "earnestly seek" is completely negatived by the omission. This, then, is the position in which we stand. A small majority of the citizens of one State in the Union have elected delegates to a State convention; that convention has ordained that all the revenue laws of the United States must be repealed, or that they are no longer a member of the Union. The governor of that State has recommended to the legislature the raising of an army to carry the secession into effect, and that he may be empowered to give clearances to vessels in the name of the State. No act of violent opposition to the laws has yet been committed, but such a state of things is hourly apprehended, and it is the intent of this instrument to PROCLAIM, not only that the duty imposed on me by the Constitution, '` to take care that the laws be faithfully executed," shall be performed to the extent of the powers already vested in me by law or of such others as the wisdom of Congress shall devise and Entrust to me for that purpose; but to warn the citizens of South Carolina, who have been deluded into an opposition to the laws, of the danger they will incur by obedience to the illegal and disorganizing ordinance of the convention-to exhort those who have refused to support it to persevere in their determination to uphold the Constitution and laws of their country, and to point out to all the perilous situation into which the good people of that State have been led, and that the course they are urged to pursue is one of ruin and disgrace to the very State whose rights they affect to support. Fellow-citizens of my native State ! let me not only admonish you, as the first magistrate of our common country, not to incur the penalty of its laws, but use the influence that a father would over his children whom he saw rushing to a certain ruin. In that paternal language, with that paternal feeling, let me tell you, my countrymen, that you are deluded by men who are either deceived themselves or wish to deceive you. Mark under what pretenses you have been led on to the brink of insurrection and treason on which you stand! First a diminution of the value of our staple commodity, lowered by over-production in other quarters and the consequent diminution in the value of your lands, were the sole effect of the tariff laws. The effect of those laws was confessedly injurious, but the evil was greatly exaggerated by the unfounded theory you were taught to believe, that its burdens were in proportion to your exports, not to your consumption of imported articles. Your pride was aroused by the assertions that a submission to these laws was a state of vassalage, and that resistance to them was equal, in patriotic merit, to the opposition our fathers offered to the oppressive laws of Great Britain. You were told that this opposition might be peaceably-might be constitutionally made-that you might enjoy all the advantages of the Union and bear none of its burdens. Eloquent appeals to your passions, to your State pride, to your native courage, to your sense of real injury, were used to prepare you for the period when the mask which concealed the hideous features of DISUNION should be taken off. It fell, and you were made to look with complacency on objects which not long since you would have regarded with horror. Look back to the arts which have brought you to this state-look forward to the consequences to which it must inevitably lead! Look back to what was first told you as an inducement to enter into this dangerous course. The great political truth was repeated to you that you had the revolutionary right of resisting all laws that were palpably unconstitutional and intolerably oppressive-it was added that the right to nullify a law rested on the same principle, but that it was a peaceable remedy! This character which was given to it, made you receive with too much confidence the assertions that were made of the unconstitutionality of the law and its oppressive effects. Mark, my fellow-citizens, that by the admission of your leaders the unconstitutionality must be palpable, or it will not justify either resistance or nullification ! What is the meaning of the word palpable in the sense in which it is here used? that which is apparent to everyone, that which no man of ordinary intellect will fail to perceive. Is the unconstitutionality of these laws of that description? Let those among your leaders who once approved and advocated the principles of protective duties, answer the question; and let them choose whether they will be considered as incapable, then, of perceiving that which must have been apparent to every man of common understanding, or as imposing upon your confidence and endeavoring to mislead you now. In either case, they are unsafe guides in the perilous path they urge you to tread. Ponder well on this circumstance, and you will know how to appreciate the exaggerated language they address to you. They are not champions of liberty emulating the fame of our Revolutionary fathers, nor are you an oppressed people, contending, as they repeat to you, against worse than colonial vassalage. You are free members of a flourishing and happy Union. There is no settled design to oppress you. You have, indeed, felt the unequal operation of laws which may have been unwisely, not unconstitutionally passed; but that inequality must necessarily be removed. At the very moment when you were madly urged on to the unfortunate course you have begun, a change in public opinion has commenced. The nearly approaching payment of the public debt, and the consequent necessity of a diminution of duties, had already caused a considerable reduction, and that, too, on some articles of general consumption in your State. The importance of this change was underrated, and you were authoritatively told that no further alleviation of your burdens was to be expected, at the very time when the condition of the country imperiously demanded such a modification of the duties as should reduce them to a just and equitable scale. But as apprehensive of the effect of this change in allaying your discontents, you were precipitated into the fearful state in which you now find yourselves. I have urged you to look back to the means that were used to burly you on to the position you have now assumed, and forward to the consequences they will produce. Something more is necessary. Contemplate the condition of that country of which you still form an important part; consider its government uniting in one bond of common interest and general protection so many different States-giving to all their inhabitants the proud title of AMERICAN CITIZEN-protecting their commerce-securing their literature and arts-facilitating their intercommunication--defending their frontiers-and making their name respected in the remotest parts of the earth! Consider the extent of its territory its increasing and happy population, its advance in arts, which render life agreeable, and the sciences which elevate the mind! See education spreading the lights of religion, morality, and general information into every cottage in this wide extent of our Territories and States! Behold it as the asylum where the wretched and the oppressed find a refuge and support! Look on this picture of happiness and honor, and say, WE TOO, ARE CITIZENS OF AMERICA--Carolina is one of these proud States her arms have defended-her best blood has cemented this happy Union! And then add, if you can, without horror and remorse this happy Union we will dissolve-this picture of peace and prosperity we will deface-this free intercourse we will interrupt- these fertile fields we will deluge with blood-the protection of that glorious flag we renounce-the very name of Americans we discard. And for what, mistaken men! For what do you throw away these inestimable blessings-for what would you exchange your share in the advantages and honor of the Union? For the dream of a separate independence-a dream interrupted by bloody conflicts with your neighbors, and a vile dependence on a foreign power. If your leaders could succeed in establishing a separation, what would be your situation? Are you united at home-are you free from the apprehension of civil discord, with all its fearful consequences? Do our neighboring republics, every day suffering some new revolution or contending with some new insurrection- do they excite your envy? But the dictates of a high duty oblige me solemnly to announce that you cannot succeed. The laws of the United States must be executed. I have no discretionary power on the subject-my duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution. Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent their execution, deceived you-they could not have been deceived themselves. They know that a forcible opposition could alone prevent the execution of the laws, and they know that such opposition must be repelled. Their object is disunion, hut be not deceived by names; disunion, by armed force, is TREASON. Are you really ready to incur its guilt? If you are, on the head of the instigators of the act be the dreadful consequences-on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall the punishment-on your unhappy State will inevitably fall all the evils of the conflict you force upon the government of your country. It cannot accede to the mad project of disunion, of which you would be the first victims-its first magistrate cannot, if he would, avoid the performance of his duty-the consequence must be fearful for you, distressing to your fellow-citizens here, and to the friends of good government throughout the world. Its enemies have beheld our prosperity with a vexation they could not conceal--it was a standing refutation of their slavish doctrines, and they will point to our discord with the triumph of malignant joy. It is yet in your power to disappoint them. There is yet time to show that the descendants of the Pinckneys, the Sumpters, the Rutledges, and of the thousand other names which adorn the pages of your Revolutionary history, will not abandon that Union to support which so many of them fought and bled and died. I adjure you, as you honor their memory--as you love the cause of freedom, to which they dedicated their lives--as you prize the peace of your country, the lives of its best citizens, and your own fair fame, to retrace your steps. Snatch from the archives of your State the disorganizing edict of its convention-hid its members to re-assemble and promulgate the decided expressions of your will to remain in the path which alone can conduct you to safety, prosperity, and honor-tell them that compared to disunion, all other evils are light, because that brings with it an accumulation of all-declare that you will never take the field unless the star-spangled banner of your country shall float over you--that you will not be stigmatized when dead, and dishonored and scorned while you live, as the authors of the first attack on the Constitution of your country!-its destroyers you cannot be. You may disturb its peace-you may interrupt the course of its prosperity-you may cloud its reputation for stability- but its tranquillity will be restored, its prosperity will return, and the stain upon its national character will be transferred and remain an eternal blot on the memory of those who caused the disorder. Fellow-citizens of the United States! the threat of unhallowed disunion-the names of those, once respected, by whom it is uttered--the array of military force to support it-denote the approach of a crisis in our affairs on which the continuance of our unexampled prosperity, our political existence, and perhaps that of all free governments, may depend. The conjuncture demanded a free, a full, and explicit enunciation, not only of my intentions, but of my principles of action, and as the claim was asserted of a right by a State to annul the laws of the Union, and even to secede from it at pleasure, a frank exposition of my opinions in relation to the origin and form of our government, and the construction I give to the instrument by which it was created, seemed to be proper. Having the fullest confidence in the justness of the legal and constitutional opinion of my duties which has been expressed, I rely with equal confidence on your undivided support in my determination to execute the laws-to preserve the Union by all constitutional means-to arrest, if possible, by moderate but firm measures, the necessity of a recourse to force; and, if it be the will of Heaven that the recurrence of its primeval curse on man for the shedding of a brother's blood should fall upon our land, that it be not called down by any offensive act on the part of the United States. Fellow-citizens! the momentous case is before you. On your undivided support of your government depends the decision of the great question it involves, whether your sacred Union will be preserved, and the blessing it secures to us as one people shall be perpetuated. No one can doubt that the unanimity with which that decision will be expressed, will he such as to inspire new confidence in republican institutions, and that the prudence, the wisdom, and the courage which it will bring to their defense, will transmit them unimpaired and invigorated to our children. May the Great Ruler of nations grant that the signal blessings with which he has favored ours may not, by the madness of party or personal ambition, be disregarded and lost, and may His wise providence bring those who have produced this crisis to see the folly, before they feel the misery, of civil strife, and inspire a returning veneration for that Union which, if we may dare to penetrate his designs, he has chosen, as the only means of attaining the high destinies to which we may reasonably aspire. In testimony whereof, I have caused the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed, having signed the same with my hand. Done at the City of Washington, this 10th day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, and of the independence of the United States the fifty-seventh.

Cartoon portraying Andrew Jackson as King

A caricature of Andrew Jackson as a despotic monarch, probably issued during the Fall of 1833 in response to the President's September order to remove federal deposits from the Bank of the United States. The print is dated a year earlier by Weitenkampf and related to Jackson's controversial veto of Congress's bill to recharter the Bank in July 1832. However, the charge, implicit in the print, of Jackson's exceeding the President's constitutional power, however, was most widely advanced in connection not with the veto but with the 1833 removal order, on which the President was strongly criticized for acting without congressional approval. Jackson, in regal costume, stands before a throne in a frontal pose reminiscent of a playing-card king. He holds a "veto" in his left hand and a scepter in his right. The Federal Constitution and the arms of Pennsylvania (the United States Bank was located in Philadelphia) lie in tatters under his feet. A book "Judiciary of the U[nited] States" lies nearby. Around the border of the print are the words "Of Veto Memory", "Born to Command" and "Had I Been Consulted."

The Inauguration of Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson, successor to a long line of "patrician" presidents, was widely acclaimed as the "peoples' choice" and the symbol of the new "age of the common man." Jackson brought with him to the White House a reputation as a military hero and an image as a frontiersman. He had the support of Western farmers and Eastern workingmen, who flocked to Washington to celebrate his inauguration. Mrs. Samuel Harrison Smith, grande dame of Washington society, set down the following horrified eyewitness account of that tumultuous day in March 1829 in a letter to a friend written a few days after the event. It [the inauguration] ... was not a thing of detail or a succession of small incidents. No, it was one grand whole, an imposing and majestic spectacle, and, to a reflective mind, one of moral sublimity. Thousands and thousands of people, without distinction of rank, collected in an immense mass round the Capitol, silent, orderly, and tranquil, with their eyes fixed on the front of that edifice, waiting the appearance of the President in the portico. The door from the rotunda opens; preceded by the marshals, surrounded by the judges of the Supreme Court, the old man with his gray locks, that crown of glory, advances, bows to the people who greet him with a shout that rends the air. The cannons from the heights around, from Alexandria and Fort Warburton, proclaim the oath he has taken and all the hills reverberate the sound. It was grand; it was sublime! An almost breathless silence succeeded, and the multitude was still, listening to catch the sound of his voice, though it was so low as to be heard only by those nearest to him. After reading his speech; the oath was administered to him by the chief justice. Then Marshall presented the Bible. The President took it from his hands, pressed his lips to it, laid it reverently down, then bowed again to the people — yes, to the people in all their majesty. And had the spectacle closed here, even Europeans must have acknowledged that a free people, collected in their might, silent, and tranquil, restrained solely by a moral power, without a shadow around of military force, was majesty rising to sublimity and far surpassing the majesty of kings and princes surrounded with armies and glittering in gold. But I will not anticipate, but will give you an account of the inauguration in mere detail. The whole of the preceding day, immense crowds were coming into the city from all parts, lodgings could not be obtained, and the newcomers had to go to Georgetown, which soon overflowed, and others had to go to Alexandria. I was told the Avenue and adjoining streets were so crowded on Tuesday afternoon that it was difficult to pass. A national salute was fired early in the morning, and ushered in March 4. By 10 o'clock, the Avenue was crowded with carriages of every description, from the splendid baronet and coach, down to wagons and carts, filled with women and children, some in finery and some in rags, for it was the people's President, and all would see him; the men all walked. ... The day was ... delightful, the scene animating; so we walked backward and forward, at every turn meeting some new acquaintance and stopping to talk and shake hands. ... We continued promenading here until near three, returned home unable to stand, and threw ourselves on the sofa. Someone came and informed us the crowd before the President's house was so far lessened that they thought we might enter. This time we effected our purpose. But what a scene did we witness! The majesty of the people had disappeared, and a rabble, a mob, of boys, Negroes, women, children — scrambling, fighting, romping. What a pity, what a pity! No arrangements had been made, no police officers placed on duty, and the whole house had been inundated by the rabble mob. We came too late. The President, after having been literally nearly pressed to death and almost suffocated and torn to pieces by the people in their eagerness to shake hands with Old Hickory, had retreated through the back way, or south front, and had escaped to his lodgings at Gadsby's. Cut glass and china to the amount of several thousand dollars had been broken in the struggle to get the refreshments. Punch and other articles had been carried out in tubs and buckets, but had it been in hogsheads it would have been insufficient; ice creams and cake and lemonade for 20,000 people, for it is said that number were there, though I think the estimate exaggerated. Ladies fainted, men were seen with bloody noses, and such a scene of confusion took place as is impossible to describe; those who got in could not get out by the door again but had to scramble out of windows. At one time, the President, who had retreated and retreated until he was pressed against the wall, could only be secured by a number of gentlemen forming round him and making a kind of barrier of their own bodies; and the pressure was so great that Colonel Bomford, who was one, said that at one time he was afraid they should have been pushed down or on the President. It was then the windows were thrown open and the torrent found an outlet, which otherwise might have proved fatal. This concourse had not been anticipated and therefore not provided against. Ladies and gentlemen only had been expected at this levee, not the people en masse. But it was the people's day, and the people's President, and the people would rule. God grant that one day or other the people do not put down all rule and rulers. I fear, enlightened freemen as they are, they will be found, as they have been found in all ages and countries where they get the power in their hands, that of all tyrants, they are the most ferocious, cruel, and despotic. The noisy and disorderly rabble in the President's house brought to my mind descriptions I had read of the mobs in the Tuileries and at Versailles. I expect to hear the carpets and furniture are ruined; the streets were muddy, and these guests all went thither on foot.

ANDREW JACKSON: MAN OF THE PEOPLE

Andrew JacksonThe era known as the Age of the Common Man owes much of its flavor to the leadership of Andrew Jackson. From simple origins, Jackson broke the mold of wealth and privilege that had dominated the U.S. presidency. His presence and actions shaped the country in profound ways and represented a dramatic break with political tradition Old Hickory A driven man nicknamed Old Hickory because of his toughness, Jackson was born in a log cabin in 1767. The son of immigrants, he faced a difficult frontier childhood and became an orphan at just 14. Jackson matured into a self-made man who gained an education, had a successful legal practice, and acquired both wealth and property. He also served as a congressman, senator, and judge in Tennessee. After some political mistakes, Jackson retrieved his reputation through his military efforts in the War of 1812. Expanding the Presidency Jackson became president in 1828 after campaigning on behalf of democracy and the ordinary citizen, on the importance of states' rights, and on the need to limit federal power. His extremely well-organized campaign machine helped to secure victory. Oddly enough, once in office, Jackson aggressively used his executive power to overrule Congress on legislation. In particular, he continually vetoed legislation to expand the role of the federal government and insisted that states pay for their own domestic improvements. He also rewarded followers with federal jobs by ousting existing federal workers—under the "democratic" claim of making government service more accessible. Nonetheless, people viewed him as their advocate, and he was enormously popular. The Age of Jackson During and after Jackson's two terms as president, the Democratic Party gained tremendous power. It used that power to seek reforms at least publicly designed to benefit common citizens. Election reforms, for example, made Jackson the first presidential candidate nominated at a national political convention. Furthermore, Jacksonians worked for such labor protections as a 10-hour work day and for regulations to ensure banking honesty. In addition to that legacy of reform, Jackson responded to memorable issues as president. Tough Issues Near the close of Jackson's first administration, Jackson went to war with Congress over national banking policy. He opposed the Bank of the United States, a congressionally chartered but private bank designed to create a stable currency, provide credit to government and private business, and ensure banking integrity. Jackson and his supporters felt that the bank was unfairly restricting credit in some regions through its policies. In addition, he viewed the bank as unconstitutional. When Congress tried to recharter the bank in 1832, Jackson vetoed the legislation, took all government funds out of the bank, and in effect destroyed it. Not long after, Jackson faced down the South Carolina nullification crisis to cement his image as the people's president.

Defense of a Government Bank

Introduction The Jacksonian Democrats' campaign against concentrated power was focused in the years 1829-1835 on the Second Bank of the United States and its president, Nicholas Biddle. A direct descendant of Hamilton's National Bank, the Second Bank was chartered in 1816 as a corporation with a capitalization of $35 million and with twenty-nine branches in various states. Biddle used the vast reserves of federal funds to create the strong central banking system required by a rapidly expanding commercial economy. In the process, however, he made enemies: merchants, brokers, and private bankers could not compete with the Second Bank for the lucrative domestic and foreign exchange business; Western farmers and businessmen objected to the pressure on local credit reserves; state banks resented the Second Bank's intrusion into their mortgage and loan business; and vast numbers of Americans objected to the Bank simply because they found it too big and therefore undemocratic. The Bank's defenders had their own enemy—Andrew Jackson—who, they claimed, was impeding commercial growth and ruining the economy with his "pet banks." The issue came to a head in 1829 when Jackson appended to his first annual message a request that Congress begin considering renewal of the Bank's charter, due to expire in 1836. The House of Representatives referred the President's request to its Ways and Means Committee, of which George McDuffie of South Carolina was chairman. The Committee submitted the following report to the House on April 13, 1830, effectively stating the most popular economic and constitutional arguments used in defense of the Bank. The committee of Ways and Means, to whom was referred so much of the message of the President as relates to the Bank of the United States, beg leave to report that they have bestowed upon the subject all the attention demanded by its intrinsic importance, and now respectfully submit the result of their deliberations to the consideration of the House. There are few subjects having reference to the policy of an established government so vitally connected with the health of the body politic, or in which the pecuniary interests of society are so extensively and deeply involved. No one of the attributes of sovereignty carries with it a more solemn responsibility, or calls in requisition a higher degree of wisdom than the power of regulating the common currency, and thus fixing the general standard of value for a great commercial community composed of confederated states. Such being, in the opinion of the Committee, the high and delicate trust exclusively committed to Congress by the federal Constitution, they have proceeded to discharge the duty assigned to them, with a corresponding sense of its magnitude and difficulty. The most simple and obvious analysis of the subject, as it is presented by the message of the President, exhibits the following questions for the decision of the national legislature: Has Congress the constitutional power to incorporate a bank such as that of the United States? Is it expedient to establish and maintain such an institution? ... I. If the concurrence of all the departments of the government, at different periods of our history, under every administration, and during the ascendancy of both the great political parties into which the country was divided soon after the adoption of the present Constitution, shall be regarded as having the authority ascribed to such sanctions by the common consent of all well-regulated communities, the constitutional power of Congress to incorporate a bank may be assumed as a postulate no longer open to controversy. ... It is to be remarked, in the first place, that since the adoption of the Constitution, a bank has existed under the authority of the federal government for thirty-three out of forty years; during which time public and private credit have been maintained at an elevation fully equal to what has existed in any nation in the world; whereas, in the two short intervals during which no national bank existed, public and private credit were greatly impaired and, in the latter instance, the fiscal operations of the government were almost entirely arrested. In the second place, it is worthy of special notice that in both the instances in which Congress has created a bank it has been done under circumstances calculated to give the highest authority to the decision. The first instance, as has been already remarked, was in the primitive days of the republic, when the patriots of the Revolution and the sages of the Federal Convention were the leading members both of the executive and legislative councils; and when General Washington, who, at the head of her armies, had conducted his country to independence, and, as the head of the Convention, had presided over those deliberations which resulted in the establishment of the present Constitution, was the acknowledged President of a people undistracted by party divisions. The second instance was under circumstances of a very different but equally decisive character. We find the very party which had so recently defeated the proposition to renew the charter of the old bank, severely schooled both by adversity and experience, magnanimously sacrificing the pride of consistency and the prejudices of party at the shrine of patriotism. It may be said without disparagement that an assembly of higher talent and purer patriotism has never existed since the days of the Revolution than the Congress by which the present bank was incorporated. If ever a political party existed of which it might be truly said that "all the ends they aimed at were their country's," it was the Republican Party of that day. They had just conducted the country through the perils of a war, waged in defense of her rights and honor, and, elevating their views far above the narrow and miserable ends of party strife, sought only to advance the permanent happiness of the people. It was to this great end that they established the present bank. ... The earliest and the principal objection urged against the constitutionality of a national bank was that Congress had not the power to create corporations. That Congress has a distinct and substantive power to create corporations, without reference to the objects entrusted to its jurisdiction, is a proposition which never has been maintained within the knowledge of the Committee; but that any one of the powers expressly conferred upon Congress is subject to the limitation that it shall not be carried into effect by the agency of a corporation is a proposition which cannot be maintained, in the opinion of the Committee. If Congress, under the authority to pass all laws, necessary and proper for carrying into effect the powers vested in all or any of the departments of the government, may rightfully pass a law inflicting the punishment of death, without any other authority, it is difficult to conceive why it may not pass a law, under the same authority, for the more humble purpose of creating a corporation. The power of creating a corporation is one of the lowest attributes, or more properly speaking, incidents of sovereign power. The chartering of a bank, for example, does not authorize the corporation to do anything which the individuals composing it might not do without the charter. It is the right of every individual of the Union to give credit to whom he chooses, and to obtain credit where he can get it. It is not the policy of any commercial country to restrict the free circulation of credit, whether in the form of promissory notes, bills of exchange, or bank notes. The charter of the Bank of the United States, therefore, merely enables the corporation to do, in an artificial capacity and with more convenience, what it would be lawful for the individual corporators to do without incorporation. ... The power to "coin money and fix the value thereof" is expressly and exclusively vested in Congress. This grant was evidently intended to invest Congress with the power of regulating the circulating medium. "Coin" was regarded, at the period of framing the Constitution, as synonymous with "currency"; as it was then generally believed that bank notes could only be maintained in circulation by being the true representative of the precious metals. The word "coin," therefore, must be regarded as a particular term, standing as the representative of a general idea. No principle of sound construction will justify a rigid adherence to the letter in opposition to the plain intention of the clause. If, for example, the gold bars of Ricardo should be substituted for our present coins, by the general consent of the commercial world, could it be maintained that Congress would not have the power to make such money and fix its value because it is not "coined"? This would be sacrificing sense to sound and substance to mere form. This clause of the Constitution is analogous to that which gives Congress the power "to establish post roads." Giving to the word "establish" its restricted interpretation as being equivalent to "fix" or "prescribe," can it be doubted that Congress has the power to establish a canal or a river as a post route, as well as a road? Roads were the ordinary channels of conveyance, and the term was, therefore, used as synonymous with "routes," whatever might be the channel of transportation, and in like manner, "coin," being the ordinary and most known form of a circulating medium, that term was used as synonymous with "currency." An argument in favor of the view just taken may be fairly deduced from the fact that the states are expressly prohibited from "coining money or emitting bills of credit," and from "making anything but gold and silver a lawful tender in payment of debts." This strongly confirms the idea that the subject of regulating the circulating medium, whether consisting of coin or paper, was, at the same time that it was taken from the control of the states, vested in the only depository in which it could be placed, consistently with the obvious design of having a common measure of value throughout the Union. ... II. The next question proposed for consideration is the expediency of establishing an incorporated bank, with a view to promote the great ends already indicated. In discussing the constitutionality of such a measure, some of the considerations which render it expedient have been slightly unfolded. But these require a more full and complete development, while others remain to be presented. It must be assumed as the basis of all sound reasoning on this subject that the existence of a paper currency issued by banks deriving their charters from the state governments cannot be prohibited by Congress. Indeed, bank credit and bank paper are so extensively interwoven with the commercial operations of society that, even if Congress had the constitutional power, it would be utterly impossible to produce so entire a change in the monetary system of the country as to abolish the agency of banks of discount, without involving the community in all the distressing embarrassments usually attendant on great political revolutions, subverting the titles to private property. The sudden withdrawal of some hundred millions of bank credit would be equivalent, in its effects, to the arbitrary and despotic transfer of the property of one portion of the community to another, to the extent, probably, of half that amount. Whatever, therefore, may be the advantages of a purely metallic currency, and whatever the objections to a circulating medium partly composed of bank paper, the Committee consider that they are precluded, by the existing state of things, from instituting a comparison between them with a view to any practical result. If they were not thus precluded, and it were submitted to them as an original question, whether the acknowledged and manifold facilities of bank credit and bank paper are not more than counterbalanced by the distressing vicissitudes in trade incident to their use, they are by no means prepared to say that they would not give a decided preference to the more costly and cumbersome medium. But the question ... is not between a metallic and a paper currency but between a paper currency of uniform value, and subject to the control of the only power competent to its regulation, and a paper currency of varying and fluctuating value, and subject to no common or adequate control whatever. On this question it would seem that there could scarcely exist a difference of opinion; and that this is substantially the question involved in considering the expediency of a national bank will satisfactorily appear by a comparison of the state of the currency previous to the establishment of the present bank and its condition for the last ten years. Soon after the expiration of the charter of the First Bank of the United States, an immense number of local banks sprang up under the pecuniary exigencies produced by the withdrawal of so large an amount of bank credit as necessarily resulted from the winding up of its concerns — an amount falling very little short of $15 million. These banks, being entirely free from the salutary control which the Bank of the United States had recently exercised over the local institutions, commenced that system of imprudent trading and excessive issues which speedily involved the country in all the embarrassments of a disordered currency. The extraordinary stimulus of a heavy war expenditure, derived principally from loans, and a corresponding multiplication of local banks, chartered by the double score in some of the states, hastened the catastrophe which must have occurred at no distant period without these extraordinary causes. The last year of the war presented the singular and melancholy spectacle of a nation abounding in resources, a people abounding in self-devoting patriotism, and a government reduced to the very brink of avowed bankruptcy, solely for the want of a national institution which, at the same time that it would have facilitated the government loans and other treasury operations, would have furnished a circulating medium of general credit in every part of the Union. In this view of the subject, the Committee are fully sustained by the opinion of Mr. Dallas, then secretary of the treasury, and by the concurring and almost unanimous opinion of all parties in Congress; for, whatever diversity of opinion prevailed as to the proper basis and organization of a bank, almost every one agreed that a national bank, of some sort, was indispensably necessary to rescue the country from the greatest of financial calamities. ... A very serious evil, already hinted at, which grew out of the relative depreciation of bank paper, at the different points of importation, was its inevitable tendency to draw all the importations of foreign merchandise to the cities where the depreciation was greatest, and divert them from those where the currency was comparatively sound. If the Bank of the United States had not been established and the government had been left without any alternative but to receive the depreciated local currency, it is difficult to imagine the extent to which the evasion of the revenue laws would have been carried. Every state would have had an interest to encourage the excessive issues of its banks and increase the degradation of its currency with a view to attract foreign commerce. Even in the condition which the currency had reached in 1816, Boston and New York and Charleston would have found it advantageous to derive their supplies of foreign merchandise through Baltimore; and commerce would undoubtedly have taken that direction had not the currency been corrected. To avoid this injurious diversion of foreign imports, Massachusetts and New York and South Carolina would have been driven, by all the motives of self-defense and self-interest, to degrade their respective currencies at least to a par with the currency of Baltimore; and thus a rivalry in the career of depreciation would have sprung up to which no limit can be assigned. As the tendency of this state of things would have been to cause the largest portion of the revenue to be collected at a few places, and in the most depreciated of the local currency, it would have followed that a very small part of that revenue would have been disbursed at the points where it was collected. The government would consequently have been compelled to sustain a heavy loss upon the transfer of its funds to the points of expenditure. The annual loss which would have resulted from these causes alone cannot be estimated at a less sum than $2 million. But the principal loss which resulted from the relative depreciation of bank paper at different places, and its want of general credit, was that sustained by the community in the great operations of commercial exchange. The extent of these operations annually may be safely estimated at $60 million. Upon this sum, the loss sustained by the merchants and planters and farmers and manufacturers was not probably less than an average of 10 percent, being the excess of the rate of exchange between its natural rate in a sound state of the currency and beyond the rate to which it has been actually reduced by the operations of the Bank of the United States. It will be thus perceived that an annual tax of $6 million was levied from the industrious and productive classes by the large monied capitalists in our commercial cities who were engaged in the business of brokerage. A variously depreciated currency and a fluctuating state of the exchanges open a wide and abundant harvest to the money brokers; and it is not, therefore, surprising that they should be opposed to an institution which, at the same time that it has relieved the community from the enormous tax just stated, has deprived them of the enormous profits which they derived from speculating in the business of exchange. ... In addition to the losses sustained by the community in the great operations of exchange, extensive losses were suffered throughout the interior of the country, in all the smaller operations of trade, as well as by the failure of the numerous paper banks, puffed into a factitious credit by fraudulent artifices, and having no substantial basis of capital to ensure the redemption of their bills. ... But it is impossible to exhibit anything like a just view of the beneficial operations of the bank without adverting to the great reduction it has effected and the steadiness it has superinduced in the rate of the commercial exchanges of the country. Though this branch of the business of the bank has been the subject of more complaint, perhaps, than any other, the Committee have no hesitation in saying it has been productive of the most signal benefits to the community and deserves the highest commendation. It has been already stated that it has saved the community from the immense losses resulting from a high and fluctuating state of the exchanges. It now remains to show its effect in equalizing the currency. In this respect, it has been productive of results more salutary than were anticipated by the most sanguine advocates of the policy of establishing the bank. It has actually furnished a circulating medium more uniform than specie. This proposition is susceptible of the clearest demonstration. If the whole circulating medium were specie, a planter of Louisiana, who should desire to purchase merchandise in Philadelphia, would be obliged to pay 1 percent, either for a bill of exchange on this latter place or for the transportation and insurance of his specie. His specie at New Orleans, where he had no present use for it, would be worth I percent less to him than it would be in Philadelphia, where he had a demand for it. But, by the aid of the Bank of the United States, one-half of the expense of transporting specie is now saved to him. The bank, for one-half of 1 percent, will give him a draft upon the mother bank at Philadelphia with which he can draw either the bills of that bank or specie, at his pleasure. In like manner, the bank and its branches will give drafts from any point of the Union to any other where offices exist, at a percentage greatly less than it would cost to transport specie, and, in many instances, at par. If the merchant or planter, however, does not choose to purchase a draft from the bank, but prefers transmitting the bills of the office where he resides to any distant point, for commercial purposes, although these bills are not strictly redeemable at the point to which they are transmitted, yet, as they are receivable in payment of all dues to the government, persons will be generally found willing to take them at par; and if they should not, the bank will receive them frequently at par, and always at a discount much less than would pay the expense of transporting specie. The fact that the bills of the bank and its branches are indiscriminately receivable at the custom houses and land offices, in payment of duties, and for the public lands, has an effect in giving uniformity to the value of these bills, which merits a more full and distinct explanation. For all the purposes of the revenue, it gives to the national currency that perfect uniformity, that ideal perfection to which a currency of gold and silver, in so extensive a country, could have no pretensions. A bill issued at Missouri is of equal value with specie at Boston in payment of duties; and the same is true of all other places, however distant, where the bank issues bills and the government collects its revenue. When it is, moreover, considered that the bank performs with the most scrupulous punctuality the stipulation to transfer the funds of the government to any point where they may be wanted, free of expense, it must be apparent that the Committee are correct, to the very letter, in stating that the bank has furnished, both to the government and to the people, a currency of absolutely uniform value in all places, for all the purposes of paying the public contributions and disbursing the public revenue. And when it is recollected that the government annually collects and disburses more than $23 million, those who are at all familiar with the subject will at once perceive that bills, which are of absolutely uniform value for this vast operation, must be very nearly so for all the purposes of general commerce. ... But the salutary agency of the Bank of the United States in furnishing a sound and uniform currency is not confined to that portion of the currency which consists of its own bills. One of the most important purposes which the bank was designed to accomplish, and which, it is confidently believed, no other human agency could have effected under our federative system of government, was the enforcement of specie payments on the part of numerous local banks, deriving their charters from the several states, and whose paper, irredeemable in specie and illimitable in its quantity, constituted the almost entire currency of the country. Amidst a combination of the greatest difficulties, the bank has almost completely succeeded in the performance of this arduous, delicate, and painful duty. With exceptions too inconsiderable to merit notice, all the state banks in the Union have resumed specie payments. Their bills, in the respective spheres of their circulation, are of equal value with gold and silver; while, for all the operations of commerce beyond that sphere, the bills or the checks of the Bank of the United States are even more valuable than specie. And even in the very few instances in which the paper of state banks is depreciated, those banks are winding up their concerns; and it may be safely said that no citizen of the Union is under the necessity of taking depreciated paper because a sound currency cannot be obtained. North Carolina is believed to be the only state where paper of the local banks is irredeemable in specie, and consequently depreciated. Even there, the depreciation is only 1 or 2 percent; and, what is more important, the paper of the Bank of the United States can be obtained by all those who desire it and have an equivalent to give for it. ... Although the expediency of renewing the charter of the present bank is not a question now submitted for the decision of Congress, the Committee consider it so far involved in the matter referred to them as to render it their duty to present some considerations bearing on that question, in addition to what they have said on the general expediency of maintaining such an institution. If a national bank, similar to the present, be a necessary and proper agent for the accomplishment of the great purposes heretofore indicated, the only remaining question would seem to be whether the charter of the present stockholders should be renewed, or a new set of stockholders incorporated. In considering this question, Congress will, of course, be governed in some degree by the terms on which the present stockholders will agree to accept a renewal of their charter. But, as the committee have satisfactory reasons for believing that terms eminently advantageous to the government can be obtained, they will proceed to some other inquiries. What, then, would be the effect of refusing to renew the present charter? And, in the first place, what are the inducements for pursuing that course? It is sometimes alleged that the present stockholders are large capitalists and, as the stock of the bank is some 20 percent above par, that a renewal of the charter would be equivalent to a grant to them of 20 percent upon their capital. It is true that a small proportion of the capital of the company belongs to very wealthy men. Something more than $2 million of that owned in the United States belongs to persons holding upward of $100,000 each. It is also true that foreigners own $7 million, or one-fifth of the capital. But, on the other hand, it is to be remarked that the government, in trust for the people of the United States, holds $7 million; that persons owning less than $5,000 each hold $4,682,000; and that persons owning between $5,000 and $10,000 each hold upward of $3 million. It is also worthy of remark that a very considerable portion of the stock — very nearly $6 million — is held by trustees and guardians for the use of females and orphan children, and charitable and other institutions. Of the $28 million of the stock which is owned by individuals, only $3,453,000 is now held by the original subscribers. All the rest has been purchased at the market prices; a large portion of it, probably, when those prices were higher than at present. Most of the investments made by wills and deeds and decrees in equity, for the use of females and minors, are believed to have been made when the stock was greatly above par. From this brief analysis, it will appear that there is nothing in the character or situation of the stockholders which should make it desirable to deprive them of the advantage which they have fairly gained by an application of their capital to purposes highly beneficial, as the Committee have attempted to show to the government and people of the United States. If foreigners own $7 million of the stock of the bank, our own government owns as much; if wealthy men own more than $2 million, men in moderate circumstances own between $7 million and $8 million; and widows, orphans, and institutions devoted to charitable and other purposes own nearly $6 million. But the objection that the stock is owned by men of large capital would apply with equal if not greater force to any bank that could be organized. In the very nature of things, men who have large surplus capitals are the principal subscribers at the first organization of a bank. Farmers and planters, merchants and manufacturers, having an active employment for their capitals, do not choose to be the first adventurers in a bank project. ... The large amount of stock now held in trust for females and minors has been principally if not entirely purchased since the bank went into operation; and the same remark is generally applicable to the stock in the hands of small holders. It is only when the character of a bank is fully established, and when its stock assumes a steady value, that these descriptions of persons make investments in it. It is morally certain, therefore, that if another distinct institution were created on the expiration of the present charter, there would be a much greater portion of its capital subscribed by men of large fortunes than is now owned by persons of this description of the stock of the United States' Bank. Indeed, it might be confidently predicted that the large capitalists who now hold stock in that bank would, from their local position and other advantages, be the first to forestall the subscriptions to the new bank, while the small stockholders, scattered over the country, would be probably excluded, and the females and minors, and others interested in trust investments made by decrees in equity, would be almost necessarily excluded, as the sanction of a court could scarcely be obtained after the passage of the new act of incorporation in time to authorize a subscription. To destroy the existing bank, therefore, after it has rendered such signal services to the country, merely with a view to incorporate another, would be an act rather of cruelty and caprice than of justice and wisdom as it regards the present stockholders. It is no light matter to depreciate the property of individuals, honestly obtained and usefully employed, to the extent of $5,600,000, and the property of the government to the extent of $1,400,000, purely for the sake of change. It would indicate a fondness for experiment which a wise government will not indulge upon slight considerations. ... If the Bank of the United States were destroyed and the local institutions left without its restraining influence, the currency would almost certainly relapse into a state of unsoundness. The very pressure which the present bank, in winding up its concerns, would make upon the local institutions would compel them either to curtail their discounts when most needed, or to suspend specie payments. It is not difficult to predict which of these alternatives they would adopt under the circumstances in which they would be placed. The imperious wants of a suffering community would call for discounts, in language which could not be disregarded. The public necessities would demand, and public opinion would sanction, the suspension, or at least an evasion, of specie payments. But, even if this desperate resort could be avoided in a period of peace and general prosperity, neither reason nor experience will permit us to doubt that a state of war would speedily bring about all the evils which so fatally affected the credit of the government and the national currency during the late war with Great Britain. We should be again driven to the same miserable round of financial expedients which, in little more than two years, brought a wealthy community almost to the very brink of a declared national bankruptcy and placed the government completely at the mercy of speculating stockjobbers.

For and Against the Bank Renewal Bill

Introduction A bill to renew the charter of the Second Bank of the United States passed the Senate on June 11 and the House on July 3, 1832. President Andrew Jackson returned the bill on July 10, along with a strong veto message. The veto brought the "Bank War" to a head. Nicholas Biddle, the Bank's president, called the veto message "a manifesto of anarchy" and Daniel Webster rose in the Senate the next day to deliver a speech in which he charged that the veto usurped congressional prerogatives established by the Constitution. Nevertheless, Congress was unable to repass the bill with the necessary two-thirds majority in both chambers, and Jackson's victory over Bank advocate Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky in the fall elections dashed any remaining hopes of rechartering the Bank. Webster's protest summarized the arguments for the Bank, as the veto message summarized those against it; taken together, they defined the issues of the 1832 campaign and, to a great extent, of the whole Jacksonian Era. Both are reprinted here. Andrew Jackson Veto Message The bill "to modify and continue" the act entitled "An act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States" was presented to me on the 4th July instant. Having considered it with that solemn regard to the principles of the Constitution which the day was calculated to inspire, and come to the conclusion that it ought not to become a law, I herewith return it to the Senate, in which it originated, with my objections. A bank of the United States is in many respects convenient for the government and useful to the people. Entertaining this opinion, and deeply impressed with the belief that some of the powers and privileges possessed by the existing bank are unauthorized by the Constitution, subversive of the rights of the states, and dangerous to the liberties of the people, I felt it my duty at an early period of my administration to call the attention of Congress to the practicability of organizing an institution combing all its advantages and obviating these objections. I sincerely regret that in the act before me I can perceive none of those modifications of the bank charter which are necessary, in my opinion, to make it compatible with justice, with sound policy, or with the Constitution of our country. The present corporate body, denominated the president, directors, and company of the Bank of the United States, will have existed at the time this act is intended to take effect twenty years. It enjoys an exclusive privilege of banking under the authority of the general government, a monopoly of its favor and support, and, as a necessary consequence, almost a monopoly of the foreign and domestic exchange. The powers, privileges, and favors bestowed upon it in the original charter, by increasing the value of the stock far above its par value, operated as a gratuity of many millions to the stock-holders. An apology may be found for the failure to guard against this result in the consideration that the effect of the original act of incorporation could not be certainly foreseen at the time of its passage. The act before me proposes another gratuity to the holders of the same stock, and in many cases to the same men, of at least $7 million more. This donation finds no apology in any uncertainty as to the effect of the act. On all hands it is conceded that its passage will increase at least 20 or 30 percent more the market price of the stock, subject to the payment of the annuity of $200,000 per year secured by the act, thus adding in a moment one-fourth to its par value. It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our government. More than $8 million of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners. By this act the American republic proposes virtually, to make them a present of some millions of dollars. For these gratuities to foreigners and to some of our own opulent citizens the act secures no equivalent whatever. They are the certain gains of the present stockholders under the operation of this act, after making full allowance for the payment of the bonus. Every monopoly and all exclusive privileges are granted at the expense of the public, which ought to receive a fair equivalent. The many millions which this act proposes to bestow on the stockholders of the existing bank must come directly or indirectly out of the earnings of the American people. It is due to them, therefore, if their government sell monopolies and exclusive privileges, that they should at least exact for them as much as they are worth in open market. The value of the monopoly in this case may be correctly ascertained. The $28 million of stock would probably be at an advance of 50 percent and command in market at least $42 million, subject to the payment of the present bonus. The present value of the monopoly, therefore, is $17 million, and this the act proposes to sell for $3 million, payable in fifteen annual installments of $200,000 each. It is not conceivable how the present stockholders can have any claim to the special favor of the government. The present corporation has enjoyed its monopoly during the period stipulated in the original contract. If we must have such a corporation, why should not the government sell out the whole stock and thus secure to the people the full market value of the privileges granted? Why should not Congress create and sell $28 million of stock, incorporating the purchasers with all the powers and privileges secured in this act and putting the premium upon the sales into the treasury? But this act does not permit competition in the purchase of this monopoly. It seems to be predicated on the erroneous idea that the present stockholders have a prescriptive right not only to the favor but to the bounty of government. It appears that more than a fourth part of the stock is held by foreigners and the residue is held by a few hundred of our own citizens, chiefly of the richest class. For their benefit does this act exclude the whole American people from competition in the purchase of this monopoly and dispose of it for many millions less than it is worth. This seems the less excusable because some of our citizens not now stockholders petitioned that the door of competition might be opened and offered to take a charter on terms much more favorable to the government and country. But this proposition, although made by men whose aggregate wealth is believed to be equal to all the private stock in the existing bank, has been set aside, and the bounty of our government is proposed to be again bestowed on the few who have been fortunate enough to secure the stock and at this moment wield the power of the existing institution. I cannot perceive the justice or policy of this course. If our government must sell monopolies, it would seem to be its duty to take nothing less than their full value, and, if gratuities must be made once in fifteen or twenty years, let them not be bestowed on the subjects of a foreign government nor upon a designated and favored class of men in our own country. It is but justice and good policy, as far as the nature of the case will admit, to confine our favors to our own fellow citizens and let each in his turn enjoy an opportunity to profit by our bounty. In the bearings of the act before me upon these points I find ample reasons why it should not become a law. It has been urged as an argument in favor of rechartering the present bank that the calling in its loans will produce great embarrassment and distress. The time allowed to close its concerns is ample, and, if it has been well managed, its pressure will be light, and heavy only in case its management has been bad. If, therefore, it shall produce distress, the fault will be its own; and it would furnish a reason against renewing a power which has been so obviously abused. But will there ever be a time when this reason will be less powerful? To acknowledge its force is to admit that the bank ought to be perpetual, and as a consequence the present stockholders and those inheriting their rights as successors be established a privileged order, clothed both with great political power and enjoying immense pecuniary advantages from their connection with the government. The modifications of the existing charter proposed by this act are not such, in my view, as make it consistent with the rights of the states or the liberties of the people. The qualification of the right of the bank to hold real estate, the limitation of its power to establish branches, and the power reserved to Congress to forbid the circulation of small notes are restrictions comparatively of little value or importance. All the objectionable principles of the existing corporation, and most of its odious features, are retained without alleviation. ... By documents submitted to Congress at the present session it appears that on the 1st of January, 1832, of the $28 million of private stock in the corporation, $8,405,500 were held by foreigners, mostly of Great Britain. The amount of stock held in the nine Western and Southwestern states is $140,200, and in the four Southern states is $5,623,100, and in the Middle and Eastern states is about $13,522,000. The profits of the bank in 1831, as shown in a statement to Congress, were about $3,455,598; of this there accrued in the nine Western states about $1,640,048; in the four Southern states about $352,507, and in the Middle and Eastern states about $1,463,041. As little stock is held in the West, it is obvious that the debt of the people in that section to the bank is principally a debt to the Eastern and foreign stockholders; that the interest they pay upon it is carried into the Eastern states and into Europe, and that it is a burden upon their industry and a drain of their currency, which no country can bear without inconvenience and occasional distress. To meet this burden and equalize the exchange operations of the bank, the amount of specie drawn from those states through its branches within the last two years, as shown by its official reports, was about $6 million. More than $500,000 of this amount does not stop in the Eastern states but passes on to Europe to pay the dividends of the foreign stockholders. In the principle of taxation recognized by this act the Western states find no adequate compensation for this perpetual burden on their industry and drain of their currency. The branch bank at Mobile made last year $95,140, yet under the provisions of this act the state of Alabama can raise no revenue from these profitable operations, because not a share of the stock is held by any of her citizens. Mississippi and Missouri are in the same condition in relation to the branches at Natchez and St. Louis, and such, in a greater or less degree, is the condition of every Western state. The tendency of the plan of taxation which this act proposes will be to place the whole United States in the same relation to foreign countries which the Western states now bear to the Eastern. When by a tax on resident stockholders the stock of this bank is made worth 10 or 15 percent more to foreigners than to residents, most of it will inevitably leave the country. Thus will this provision in its practical effect deprive the Eastern as well as the Southern and Western states of the means of raising a revenue from the extension of business and great profits of this institution. It will make the American people debtors to aliens in nearly the whole amount due to this bank, and send across the Atlantic from $2 million to $5 million of specie every year to pay the bank dividends. In another of its bearings this provision is fraught with danger. Of the twenty-five directors of this bank, five are chosen by the government and twenty by the citizen stockholders. From all voice in these elections the foreign stockholders are excluded by the charter. In proportion, therefore, as the stock is transferred to foreign holders the extent of suffrage in the choice of directors is curtailed. Already is almost a third of the stock in foreign hands and not represented in elections. It is constantly passing out of the country, and this act will accelerate its departure. The entire control of the institution would necessarily fall into the hands of a few citizen stockholders, and the ease with which the object would be accomplished would be a temptation to designing men to secure that control in their own hands by monopolizing the remaining stock. There is danger that a president and directors would then be able to elect themselves from year to year and, without responsibility or control, manage the whole concerns of the bank during the existence of its charter. It is easy to conceive that great evils to our country and its institutions might flow from such a concentration of power in the hands of a few men irresponsible to the people. Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? The president of the bank has told us that most of the state banks exist by its forbearance. Should its influence become concentered, as it may under the operation of such an act as this, in the hands of a self-elected directory whose interests are identified with those of the foreign stockholders, will there not be cause to tremble for the purity of our elections in peace and for the independence of our country in war? Their power would be great whenever they might choose to exert it; but if this monopoly were regularly renewed every fifteen or twenty years on terms proposed by themselves, they might seldom in peace put forth their strength to influence elections or control the affairs of the nation. But if any private citizen or public functionary should interpose to curtail its powers or prevent a renewal of its privileges, it cannot be doubted that he would be made to feel its influence. Should the stock of the bank principally pass into the hands of the subjects of a foreign country, and should we unfortunately become involved in a war with that country, what would be our condition? Of the course which would be pursued by a bank almost wholly owned by the subjects of a foreign power and managed by those whose interests, if not affections, would run in the same direction, there can be no doubt. All its operations within would be in aid of the hostile fleets and armies without. Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence, it would be more formidable and dangerous than the naval and military power of the enemy. If we must have a bank with private stockholders, every consideration of sound policy and every impulse of American feeling admonishes that it should be purely American. Its stockholders should be composed exclusively of our own citizens, who at least ought to be friendly to our government and willing to support it in times of difficulty and danger. So abundant is domestic capital that competition in subscribing for the stock of local banks has recently led almost to riots. To a bank exclusively of American stockholders, possessing the powers and privileges granted by this act, subscriptions for $200 million could be readily obtained. Instead of sending abroad the stock of the bank in which the government must deposit its funds and on which it must rely to sustain its credit in times of emergency; it would rather seem to be expedient to prohibit its sale to aliens under penalty of absolute forfeiture. It is maintained by the advocates of the bank that its constitutionality in all its features ought to be considered as settled by precedent and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I cannot assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power except where the acquiescence of the people and the states can be considered as well settled. So far from this being the case on this subject, an argument against the bank might be based on precedent. One Congress in 1791 decided in favor of a bank; another in 1811 decided against it. One Congress in 1815 decided against a bank; another in 1816 decided in its favor. Prior to the present Congress, therefore, the precedents drawn from that source were equal. If we resort to the states, the expressions of legislative, judicial, and executive opinions against the bank have been probably to those in its favor as four to one. There is nothing in precedent, therefore, which, if its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of the act before me. If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this government. The Congress, the executive, and the court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve. But in the case relied upon, the Supreme Court have not decided that all the features of this corporation are compatible with the Constitution. It is true that the Court have said that the law incorporating the bank is a constitutional exercise of power by Congress; but, taking into view the whole opinion of the court and the reasoning by which they have come to that conclusion, I understand them to have decided that, inasmuch as a bank is an appropriate means for carrying into effect the enumerated powers of the general government, therefore the law incorporating it is in accordance with that provision of the Constitution which declares that Congress shall have power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying those powers into execution." Having satisfied themselves that the word "necessary" in the Constitution means "needful," "requisite," "essential," "conducive to," and that "a bank" is a convenient, a useful, and an essential instrument in the prosecution of the government's "fiscal operations," they conclude that to "use one must be within the discretion of Congress" and that "the act to incorporate the Bank of the United States is a law made in pursuance of the Constitution"; "but," say they, "where the law is not prohibited and is really calculated to effect any of the objects entrusted to the government, to undertake here to inquire into the degree of its necessity would be to pass the line which circumscribes the judicial department and to tread on legislative ground." The principle here affirmed is that the "degree of its necessity," involving all the details of a banking institution, is a question exclusively for legislative consideration. A bank is constitutional, but it is the province of the legislature to determine whether this or that particular power, privilege, or exemption is "necessary and proper" to enable the bank to discharge its duties to the government, and from their decision there is no appeal to the courts of justice. Under the decision of the Supreme Court, therefore, it is the exclusive province of Congress and the President to decide whether the particular features of this act are necessary and proper in order to enable the bank to perform conveniently and efficiently the public duties assigned to it as a fiscal agent, and therefore constitutional, or unnecessary and improper, and therefore unconstitutional. Without commenting on the general principle affirmed by the Supreme Court, let us examine the details of this act in accordance with the rule of legislative action which they had laid down. It will be found that many of the powers and privileges conferred on it cannot be supposed necessary for the purpose for which it is proposed to be created and are not, therefore, means necessary to attain the end in view, and consequently not justified by the Constitution. The original Act of Incorporation, Section 21, enacts that "no other bank shall be established by any future law of the United States during the continuance of the corporation hereby created, for which the faith of the United States is hereby pledged: Provided, Congress may renew existing charters for banks within the District of Columbia not increasing the capital thereof, and may also establish any other bank or banks in said District with capitals not exceeding in the whole $6 million if they shall deem it expedient." This provision is continued in force by the act before me fifteen years from the 3rd of March, 1836. If Congress possessed the power to establish one bank, they had power to establish more than one if in their opinion two or more banks had been "necessary" to facilitate the execution of the powers delegated to them in the Constitution. If they possessed the power to establish a second bank, it was a power derived from the Constitution to be exercised from time to time, and at any time when the interests of the country or the emergencies of the government might make it expedient. It was possessed by one Congress as well as another, and by all congresses alike, and alike at every session. But the Congress of 1816 have taken it away from their successors for twenty years, and the Congress of 1832 proposes to abolish it for fifteen years more. It cannot be "necessary" or "proper" for Congress to barter away or divest themselves of any of the powers vested in them by the Constitution to be exercised for the public good. It is not "necessary" to the efficiency of the bank, nor is it "proper" in relation to themselves and their successors. They may properly use the discretion vested in them, but they may not limit the discretion of their successors. This restriction on themselves and grant of a monopoly to the bank is therefore unconstitutional. In another point of view this provision is a palpable attempt to amend the Constitution by an act of legislation. The Constitution declares that "the Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the District of Columbia. Its constitutional power, therefore, to establish banks in the District of Columbia and increase their capital at will is unlimited and uncontrollable by any other power than that which gave authority to the Constitution. Yet this act declares that Congress shall not increase the capital of existing banks, nor create other banks with capitals exceeding in the whole $6 million. The Constitution declares that Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation over this District "in all cases whatsoever," and this act declares they shall not. Which is the supreme law of the land? This provision cannot be "necessary" or "proper" or constitutional unless the absurdity be admitted that whenever it be "necessary and proper" in the opinion of Congress they have a right to barter away one portion of the powers vested in them by the Constitution as a means of executing the rest. On two subjects only does the Constitution recognize in Congress the power to grant exclusive privileges or monopolies. It declares that "Congress shall have power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Out of this express delegation of power have grown our laws of patents and copyrights. As the Constitution expressly delegates to Congress the power to grant exclusive privileges in these cases as the means of executing the substantive power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts," it is consistent with the fair rules of construction to conclude that such a power was not intended to be granted as a means of accomplishing any other end. On every other subject which comes within the scope of congressional power there is an ever living discretion in the use of proper means, which cannot be restricted or abolished without an amendment of the Constitution. Every act of Congress, therefore, which attempts by grants or monopolies or sale of exclusive privileges for a limited time, or a time without limit, to restrict or extinguish its own discretion in the choice of means to execute its delegated powers is equivalent to a legislative amendment of the Constitution and palpably unconstitutional. This act authorizes and encourages transfers of its stock to foreigners and grants them an exemption from all state and national taxation. So far from being "necessary and proper" that the bank should possess this power to make it a safe and efficient agent of the government in its fiscal operations, it is calculated to convert the Bank of the United States into a foreign bank, to impoverish our people in time of peace, to disseminate a foreign influence through every section of the republic, and in war to endanger our independence. The several states reserved the power at the formation of the Constitution to regulate and control titles and transfers of real property, and most, if not all, of them have laws disqualifying aliens from acquiring or holding lands within their limits. But this act, in disregard of the undoubted right of the states to prescribe such disqualifications, gives to aliens stockholders in this bank an interest and title, as members of the corporation, to all the real property it may acquire within any of the states of this Union. This privilege granted to aliens is not "necessary" to enable the bank to perform its public duties, nor in any sense "proper," because it is vitally subversive of the rights of the states. The government of the United States have no constitutional power to purchase lands within the states except "for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings," and even for these objects only "by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be." By making themselves stockholders in the bank and granting to the corporation the power to purchase lands for other purposes, they assume a power not granted in the Constitution and grant to others what they do not themselves possess. It is not necessary to the receiving, safekeeping, or transmission of the funds of the government that the bank should possess this power, and it is not proper that Congress should thus enlarge the powers delegated to them in the Constitution. ... The government is the only "proper" judge where its agents should reside and keep their offices, because it best knows where their presence will be "necessary." It cannot, therefore, be "necessary" or "proper" to authorize the bank to locate branches where it pleases to perform the public service, without consulting the government and contrary to its will. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court concedes that Congress cannot establish a bank for purposes of private speculation and gain, but only as a means of executing the delegated powers of the general government. By the same principle a branch bank cannot constitutionally be established for other than public purposes. The power which this act gives to establish two branches in any state, without the injunction or request of the government and for other than public purposes, is not "necessary" to the due execution of the powers delegated to Congress. The bonus which is exacted from the bank is a confession upon the face of the act that the powers granted by it are greater than are "necessary" to its character of a fiscal agent. The government does not tax its officers and agents for the privilege of serving it. The bonus of $1,500,000 required by the original charter and that of $3 million proposed by this act are not exacted for the privilege of giving "the necessary facilities for transferring the public funds from place to place within the United States or the territories thereof, and for distributing the same in payment of the public creditors without charging commission or claiming allowance on account of the difference of exchange," as required by the act of incorporation, but for something more beneficial to the stockholders. The original act declares that it (the bonus) is granted "in consideration of the exclusive privileges and benefits conferred by this act upon the said bank," and the act before me declares it to be "in consideration of the exclusive benefits and privileges continued by this act to the said corporation for fifteen years, as aforesaid." It is therefore for "exclusive privileges and benefits" conferred for their own use and emolument and not for the advantage of the government, that a bonus is exacted. These surplus powers for which the bank is required to pay cannot surely be "necessary" to make it the fiscal agent of the treasury. If they were, the exaction of a bonus for them would not be "proper." It is maintained by some that the bank is a means of executing the constitutional power "to coin money and regulate the value thereof." Congress have established a mint to coin money and passed laws to regulate the value thereof. The money so coined, with its value so regulated, and such foreign coins as Congress may adopt are the only currency known to the Constitution. But if they have other power to regulate the currency, it was conferred to be exercised by themselves and not to be transferred to a corporation. If the bank be established for that purpose, with a charter unalterable without its consent, Congress have parted with their power for a term of years, during which the Constitution is a dead letter. It is neither necessary nor proper to transfer its legislative power to such a bank, and therefore unconstitutional. By its silence, considered in connection with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M'Culloch against the state of Maryland, this act takes from the states the power to tax a portion of the banking business carried on within their limits, in subversion of one of the strongest barriers which secured them against federal encroachments. Banking, like farming, manufacturing, or any other occupation or profession, is a business, the right to follow which is not originally derived from the laws. Every citizen and every company of citizens in all of our states possessed the right until the state legislatures deemed it good policy to prohibit private banking by law. If the prohibitory state laws were now repealed, every citizen would again possess the right. The state banks are a qualified restoration of the right which has been taken away by the laws against banking, guarded by such provisions and limitations as in the opinion of the state legislatures the public interest requires. These corporations, unless there be an exemption in their charter, are, like private bankers and banking companies, subject to state taxation. The manner in which these taxes shall be laid depends wholly on legislative discretion. It may be upon the bank, upon the stock, upon the profits, or in any other mode which the sovereign power shall will. Upon the formation of the Constitution the states guarded their taxing power with peculiar jealousy. They surrendered it only as it regards imports and exports. In relation to every other object within their jurisdiction, whether persons, property, business, or professions, it was secured in as ample a manner as it was before possessed. All persons, though United States officers, are liable to a poll tax by the states within which they reside. The lands of the United States are liable to the usual land tax, except in the new states, from whom agreements that they will not tax unsold lands are exacted when they are admitted into the Union. Horses, wagons, any beasts or vehicles, tools, or property belonging to private citizens, though employed in the service of the United States, are subject to state taxation. Every private business, whether carried on by an officer of the general government or not, whether it be mixed with public concerns or not, even if it be carried on by the government of the United States itself, separately or in partnership, falls within the scope of the taxing power of the state. Nothing comes more fully within it than banks and the business of banking, by whomsoever instituted and carried on. Over this whole subject matter it is just as absolute, unlimited, and uncontrollable as if the Constitution had never been adopted, because in the formation of that instrument it was reserved without qualification. The principle is conceded that the states cannot rightfully tax the operations of the general government. They cannot tax the money of the government deposited in the state banks nor the agency of those banks remitting it; but will any man maintain that their mere selection to perform this public service for the general government would exempt the state banks and their ordinary business from state taxation? Had the United States, instead of establishing a bank at Philadelphia, employed a private banker to keep and transmit their funds, would it have deprived Pennsylvania of the right to tax his bank and his usual banking operations? It will not be pretended. Upon what principle, then, are the banking establishments of the Bank of the United States and their usual banking operations to be exempted from taxation? It is not their public agency or the deposits of the government which the states claim a right to tax, but their banks and their banking powers, instituted and exercised within state jurisdiction for their private emolument — those powers and privileges for which they pay a bonus, and which the states tax in their own banks. The exercise of these powers within a state, no matter by whom or under what authority, whether by private citizens in their original right, by corporate bodies created by the states, by foreigners or the agents of foreign governments located within their limits, forms a legitimate object of state taxation. From this and like sources, from the persons, property, and business that are found residing, located, or carried on under their jurisdiction, must the states, since the surrender of their right to raise a revenue from imports and exports, draw all the money necessary for the support of their governments and the maintenance of their independence. There is no more appropriate subject of taxation than banks, banking, and bank stocks, and none to which the states ought more pertinaciously to cling. It cannot be "necessary" to the character of the bank as a fiscal agent of the government that its private business should be exempted from that taxation to which all the state banks are liable, nor can I conceive it "proper" that the substantive and most essential powers reserved by the states shall be thus attacked and annihilated as a means of executing the powers delegated to the general government. It may be safely assumed that none of those sages who had an agency in forming or adopting our Constitution ever imagined that any portion of the taxing power of the states not prohibited to them nor delegated to Congress was to be swept away and annihilated as a means of executing certain powers delegated to Congress. If our power over means is so absolute that the Supreme Court will not call in question the constitutionality of an act of Congress the subject of which "is not prohibited, and is really calculated to effect any of the objects entrusted to the government," although, as in the case before me, it takes away powers expressly granted to Congress and rights scrupulously reserved to the states, it becomes us to proceed in our legislation with the utmost caution. Though not directly, our own powers and the rights of the states may be indirectly legislated away in the use of means to execute substantive powers. We may not enact that Congress shall not have the power of exclusive legislation over the District of Columbia, but we may pledge the faith of the United States that as a means of executing other powers it shall not be exercised for twenty years or forever. We may not pass an act prohibiting the states to tax the banking business carried on within their limits, but we may, as a means of executing our powers over other objects, place that business in the hands of our agents and then declare it exempt from state taxation in their hands. Thus may our own powers and the rights of the states, which we cannot directly curtail or invade, be frittered away and extinguished in the use of means employed by us to execute other powers. That a bank of the United States, competent to all the duties which may be required by the government, might be so organized as not to infringe on our own delegated powers or the reserved rights of the states I do not entertain a doubt. Had the executive been called upon to furnish the project of such an institution, the duty would have been cheerfully performed. In the absence of such a call it was obviously proper that he should confine himself to pointing out those prominent features in the act presented which in his opinion make it incompatible with the Constitution and sound policy. A general discussion will now take place, eliciting new light and settling important principles; and a new Congress, elected in the midst of such discussion, and furnishing an equal representation of the people according to the last census, will bear to the Capitol the verdict of public opinion, and, I doubt not, bring this important question to a satisfactory result. Under such circumstances the bank comes forward and asks a renewal of its charter for a term of fifteen years upon conditions which not only operate as a gratuity to the stockholders of many millions of dollars but will sanction any abuses and legalize any encroachments. Suspicions are entertained and charges are made of gross abuse and violation of its charter. An investigation unwillingly conceded and so restricted in time as necessarily to make it incomplete and unsatisfactory discloses enough to excite suspicion and alarm. In the practices of the principal bank partially unveiled, in the absence of important witnesses, and in numerous charges confidently made and as yet wholly uninvestigated there was enough to induce a majority of the committee of investigation — a committee which was selected from the most able and honorable members of the House of Representatives — to recommend a suspension of further action upon the bill and a prosecution of the inquiry. As the charter had yet four years to run, and as a renewal now was not necessary to the successful prosecution of its business, it was to have been expected that the bank itself, conscious of its purity and proud of its character, would have withdrawn its application for the present and demanded the severest scrutiny into all its transactions. In their declining to do so there seems to be an additional reason why the functionaries of the government should proceed with less haste and more caution in the renewal of their monopoly. The bank is professedly established as an agent of the executive branch of the government, and its constitutionality is maintained on that ground. Neither upon the propriety of present action nor upon the provisions of this act was the executive consulted. It has had no opportunity to say that it neither needs nor wants an agent clothed with such powers and favored by such exemptions. There is nothing in its legitimate functions which makes it necessary or proper. Whatever interest or influence, whether public or private, has given birth to this act, it cannot be found either in the wishes or necessities of the Executive Department, by which present action is deemed premature, and the powers conferred upon its agent not only unnecessary but dangerous to the government and country. It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth cannot be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society — the farmers, mechanics, and laborers — who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles. Nor is our government to be maintained or our Union preserved by invasions of the rights and powers of the several states. In thus attempting to make our general government strong, we make it weak. Its true strength consists in leaving individuals and states as much as possible to themselves — in making itself felt, not in its power, but in its beneficence; not in its control, but in its protection; not in binding the states more closely to the center, but leaving each to move unobstructed in its proper orbit. Experience should teach us wisdom. Most of the difficulties our government now encounters and most of the dangers which impend over our Union have sprung from an abandonment of the legitimate objects of government by our national legislation and the adoption of such principles as are embodied in this act. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress. By attempting to gratify their desires, we have in the results of our legislation arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and man against man, in a fearful commotion which threatens to shake the foundations of our Union. It is time to pause in our career to review our principles and, if possible, revive that devoted patriotism and spirit of compromise which distinguished the sages of the Revolution and the fathers of our Union. If we cannot at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, and in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy. Daniel Webster Reply to Jackson I hesitate not to say that, as this veto travels to the West, it will depreciate the value of every man's property from the Atlantic states to the capitol of Missouri. Its effects will be felt in the price of lands, the great and leading article of Western property, in the price of crops, in the products of labor, in the repression of enterprise, and in embarrassment to every kind of business and occupation, I state this opinion strongly because I have no doubt of its truth, and am willing its correctness should be judged by the event. Without personal acquaintance with the Western states, I know enough of their condition to be satisfied that what I have predicted must happen. The people of the West are rich, but their riches consist in their immense quantities of excellent land, in the products of these lands, and in their spirit of enterprise. The actual value of money, or rate of interest, with them is high because their pecuniary capital bears little proportion to their landed interest. At an average rate, money is not worth less than 8 percent per annum throughout the whole Western country, notwithstanding that it has now a loan or an advance from the bank of $30 million at 6 percent. To call in this loan, at the rate of $8 million a year, in addition to the interest on the whole, and to take away, at the same time, that circulation which constitutes so great a portion of the medium of payment throughout that whole region, is an operation which, however wisely conducted, cannot but inflict a blow on the community of tremendous force and frightful consequences. The thing cannot be done without distress, bankruptcy, and ruin to many. ... Although, sir, I have spoken of the effects of this veto in the Western country, it has not been because I considered that part of the United States exclusively affected by it. Some of the Atlantic states may feel its consequences, perhaps, as sensibly as those of the West, though not for the same reasons. The concern manifested by Pennsylvania for the renewal of the charter shows her sense of the importance of the bank to her own interest and that of the nation. That great and enterprising state has entered into an extensive system of internal improvements, which necessarily makes heavy demands on her credit and her resources; and by the sound and acceptable currency which the bank affords, by the stability which it gives to private credit, and by occasional advances made in anticipation of her revenues and in aid of her great objects, she has found herself benefited, doubtless, in no inconsiderable degree. Her legislature has instructed her senators here to advocate the renewal of the charter, at this session. They have obeyed her voice, and yet they have the misfortune to find that, in the judgment of the President, the measure is unconstitutional, unnecessary, dangerous to liberty, and is, moreover, ill-timed. But, Mr. President, it is not the local interest of the West, nor the particular interest of Pennsylvania, or any other state, which has influenced Congress in passing this bill. It has been governed by a wise foresight and by a desire to avoid embarrassment in the pecuniary concerns of the country; to secure the safe collection and convenient transmission of public moneys; to maintain the circulation of the country, sound and safe as it now happily is, against the possible effects of a wild spirit of speculation. Finding the bank highly useful, Congress has thought fit to provide for its continuance. ... Before proceeding to the constitutional question, there are some other topics treated in the message which ought to be noticed. It commences by an inflamed statement of what it calls the "favor" bestowed upon the original bank by the government, or, indeed, as it is phrased, the "monopoly of its favor and support"; and through the whole message all possible changes are rung on the "gratuity," the "exclusive privileges," and "monopoly" of the bank charter. Now, sir, the truth is that the powers conferred on the bank are such, and no others, as are usually conferred on similar institutions. They constitute no monopoly, although some of them are of necessity, and with propriety, exclusive privileges. "The original act," says the message, "operated as a gratuity of many millions to the stockholders." What fair foundation is there for this remark? The stockholders received their charter, not gratuitously but for a valuable consideration in money prescribed by Congress and actually paid. At some times the stock has been above par, at other times below par, according to prudence in management, or according to commercial occurrences. But if, by a judicious administration of its affairs, it had kept its stock always above par, what pretense would there be, nevertheless, for saying that such augmentation of its value was a "gratuity" from government? The message proceeds to declare that the present act proposes another donation, another gratuity, to the same men, of at least $7 million more. It seems to me that this is an extraordinary statement and an extraordinary style of argument for such a subject and on such an occasion. In the first place, the facts are all assumed; they are taken for true without evidence. There are no proofs that any benefit to that amount will accrue to the stockholders, nor any experience to justify the expectation of it. It rests on random estimates or mere conjecture. But suppose the continuance of the charter should prove beneficial to the stockholders; do they not pay for it? They give twice as much for a charter of fifteen years as was given before for one of twenty. And if the proposed bonus, or premium, be not, in the President's judgment, large enough, would he, nevertheless, on such a mere matter of opinion as that, negative the whole bill? May not Congress be trusted to decide even on such a subject as the amount of the money premium to be received by government for a charter of this kind? But, sir, there is a larger and a much more just view of this subject. The bill was not passed for the purpose of benefiting the present stockholders. Their benefit, if any, is incidental and collateral. Nor was it passed on any idea that they had a right to a renewed charter, although the message argues against such a right, as if it had been somewhere set up and asserted. No such right has been asserted by anybody. Congress passed the bill, not as a bounty or a favor to the present stockholders, nor to comply with any demand of right on their part, but to promote great public interests, for great public objects. Every bank must have some stockholders, unless it be such a bank as the President has recommended, and in regard to which he seems not likely to find much concurrence of other men's opinions; and if the stockholders, whoever they may be, conduct the affairs of the bank prudently, the expectation is always, of course, that they will make it profitable to themselves as well as useful to the public. If a bank charter is not to be granted because, to some extent, it may be profitable to the stockholders, no charter can be granted. The objection lies against all banks. Sir, the object aimed at by such institutions is to connect the public safety and convenience with private interests. It has been found by experience that banks are safest under private management and that government banks are among the most dangerous of all inventions. Now, sir, the whole drift of the message is to reverse the settled judgment of all the civilized world, and to set up government banks independent of private interests or private control. For this purpose the message labors, even beyond the measure of all its other labors, to create jealousies and prejudices, on the ground of the alleged benefit which individuals will derive from the renewal of this charter. Much less effort is made to show that government, or the public, will be injured by the bill than that individuals will profit by it. Following up the impulses of the same spirit, the message goes on gravely to allege that the act as passed by Congress proposes to make a present of some millions of dollars to foreigners because a portion of the stock is held by foreigners. Sir, how would this sort of argument apply to other cases? The President has shown himself not only willing but anxious to pay off the 3 percent stock of the United States at par, notwithstanding that it is notorious that foreigners are owners of the greater part of it. Why should he not call that a donation to foreigners of many millions? ... From the commencement of the government, it has been thought desirable to invite rather than to repel the introduction of foreign capital. Our stocks have all been open to foreign subscriptions; and the state banks, in like manner, are free to foreign ownership. Whatever state has created a debt has been willing that foreigners should become purchasers, and desirous of it. How long is it, sir, since Congress itself passed a law vesting new powers in the President of the United States over the cities in this District for the very purpose of increasing their credit abroad, the better to enable them to borrow money to pay their subscriptions to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal? It is easy to say that there is danger to liberty, danger to independence, in a bank open to foreign stockholders, because it is easy to say anything. But neither reason nor experience proves any such danger. The foreign stockholder cannot be a director. He has no voice even in the choice of directors. His money is placed entirely in the management of the directors appointed by the President and Senate and by the American stockholders. So far as there is dependence or influence either way, it is to the disadvantage of the foreign stockholder. He has parted with the control over his own property, instead of exercising control over the property or over the actions of others. ... I now proceed, sir, to a few remarks upon the President's constitutional objections to the bank; and I cannot forbear to say, in regard to them, that he appears to me to have assumed very extraordinary grounds of reasoning. He denies that the constitutionality of the bank is a settled question. If it be not, will it ever become so, or what disputed question ever can be settled? ... As early as 1791, after great deliberation, the First Bank charter was passed by Congress and approved by President Washington. It established an institution, resembling, in all things now objected to, the present bank. ... That bank continued twenty years. In 1816, the present institution was established and has been ever since in full operation. Now, sir, the question of the power of Congress to create such institutions has been contested in every manner known to our Constitution and laws. The forms of the government furnish no new mode in which to try this question. It has been discussed over and over again in Congress; it has been argued and solemnly adjudged in the Supreme Court; every President, except the present, has considered it a settled question; many of the state legislatures have instructed their senators to vote for the bank; the tribunals of the states, in every instance, have supported its constitutionality; and, beyond all doubt and dispute, the general public opinion of the country has at all times given, and does now give, its full sanction and approbation to the exercise of this power as being a constitutional power. ... But if the President thinks lightly of the authority of Congress in construing the Constitution, he thinks still more lightly of the authority of the Supreme Court. He asserts a right of individual judgment on constitutional questions, which is totally inconsistent with any proper administration of the government, or any regular execution of the laws. Social disorder, entire uncertainty in regard to individual rights and individual duties, the cessation of legal authority, confusion, the dissolution of free government — all these are the inevitable consequences of the principles adopted by the message whenever they shall be carried to their full extent. Hitherto it has been thought that the final decision of constitutional questions belonged to the supreme judicial tribunal. The very nature of free government, it has been supposed, enjoins this; and our Constitution, moreover, has been understood so to provide, clearly and expressly. It is true that each branch of the legislature has an undoubted right, in the exercise of its functions, to consider the constitutionality of a law proposed to be passed. This is naturally a part of its duty; and neither branch can be compelled to pass any law, or do any other act, which it deems to be beyond the reach of its constitutional power. The President has the same right, when a bill is presented for his approval; for he is, doubtless, bound to consider, in all cases, whether such bill be compatible with the Constitution, and whether he can approve it consistently with his oath of office. But when a law has been passed by Congress and approved by the President, it is now no longer in the power, either of the same President or his successors, to say whether the law is constitutional or not. He is not at liberty to disregard it; he is not at liberty to feel or to affect "constitutional scruples," and to sit in judgment himself on the validity of a statute of the government and to nullify it, if he so chooses. After a law has passed through all the requisite forms; after it has received the requisite legislative sanction and the executive approval, the question of its constitutionality then becomes a judicial question, and a judicial question alone. In the courts that question may be raised, argued, and adjudged; it can be adjudged nowhere else. ... It is to be remembered, sir, that it is the present law, it is the Act of 1816, it is the present charter of the bank, which the President pronounces to be unconstitutional. It is no bank to be created, it is no law proposed to be passed which he denounces; it is the law now existing, passed by Congress, approved by President Madison, and sanctioned by a solemn judgment of the Supreme Court which he now declares unconstitutional, and which, of course, so far as it may depend on him, cannot be executed. If these opinions of the President be maintained, there is an end of all law and all judicial authority. Statutes are but recommendations, judgments no more than opinions. Both are equally destitute of binding force. Such a universal power as is now claimed for him, a power of judging over the laws and over the decisions of the judiciary, is nothing else but pure despotism. If conceded to him, it makes him at once what Louis XIV proclaimed himself to be when he said, "I am the State." The Supreme Court has unanimously declared and adjudged that the existing bank is created by a constitutional law of Congress. ... This bank, so far as the present question is concerned, is like that which was established in 1791 by Washington and sanctioned by the great men of that day. In every form therefore, in which the question can be raised, it has been raised and has been settled. Every process and every mode of trial known to the Constitution and laws have been exhausted, and always and without exception the decision has been in favor of the validity of the law. But all this practice, all this precedent, all this public approbation, all this solemn adjudication directly on the point is to be disregarded and rejected and the constitutional power flatly denied. ... Hitherto it has always been supposed ... that the policy of granting a particular charter may be materially dependent on the structure and organization and powers of the proposed institution. But its general constitutionality has never before been understood to turn on such points. This would be making its constitutionality depend on subordinate questions; on questions of expediency and questions of detail; upon that which one man may think necessary and another may not. If the constitutional question were made to hinge on matters of this kind, how could it ever be decided? All would depend on conjecture; on the complexional feeling, on the prejudices, on the passions, of individuals; on more or less practical skill or correct judgment in regard to banking operations among those who should be the judges; on the impulse of momentary interests, party objects, or personal purposes. Put the question in this manner to a court of seven judges, to decide whether a particular bank was constitutional, and it might be doubtful whether they could come to any result, as they might well hold very various opinions on the practical utility of many clauses of the charter. ... One man may think the granted powers not indispensable to the particular bank; another may suppose them injudicious or injurious; a third may imagine that other powers, if granted in their stead, would be more beneficial; but all these are matters of expediency, about which men may differ; and the power of deciding upon them belongs to Congress. I again repeat, sir, that if, for reasons of this kind, the President sees fit to negative a bill on the ground of its being inexpedient or impolitic, he has a right to do so. But remember, sir, that we are now on the constitutional question; remember that the argument of the President is that, because powers were given to the bank by the charter of 1816 which he thinks unnecessary, that charter is unconstitutional. ... This power, if constitutional at all, is only constitutional in the hands of Congress. Anywhere else its exercise would be plain usurpation. If, then, the authority to decide what powers ought to be granted to a bank belong to Congress, and Congress shall have exercised that power, it would seem little better than absurd to say that its act, nevertheless, would be unconstitutional and invalid if, in the opinion of a third party, it had misjudged, on a question of expediency, in the arrangement of details. According to such a mode of reasoning, a mistake in the exercise of jurisdiction takes away the jurisdiction. If Congress decide right, its decision may stand; if it decide wrong, its decision is nugatory; and whether its decision be right or wrong, another is to judge, although the original power of making the decision must be allowed to be exclusively in Congress. ... If the reasoning of the message be well founded, it is clear that the charter of the existing bank is not a law. The bank has no legal existence; it is not responsible to government; it has no authority to act; it is incapable of being an agent. The President may treat it as a nullity tomorrow, withdraw from it all the public deposits, and set afloat all the existing national arrangements of revenue and finance. It is enough to state these monstrous consequences to show that the doctrine, principles, and pretensions of the message are entirely inconsistent with a government of laws. If that which Congress has enacted, and the Supreme Court has sanctioned, be not the law of the land, then the reign of law has ceased, and the reign of individual opinion has already begun. ... Mr. President, I have understood the true and well-established doctrine to be that, after it has been decided that it is competent for Congress to establish a bank, then it follows that it may create such a bank as it judges in its discretion to be best, and invest it with all such power as it may deem fit and suitable; with this limitation, always, that all is to be done in the bona fide execution of the power to create a bank. ... What is called the "monopoly" is made the subject of repeated rehearsal, in terms of special complaint. By this "monopoly," I suppose, is understood the restriction contained in the charter that Congress shall not, during the twenty years, create another bank. Now, sir, let me ask — Who would think of creating a bank, inviting stockholders into it, with large investments, imposing upon it heavy duties, as connected with the government, receiving some millions of dollars as a bonus or premium, and yet retaining the power of granting, the next day, another charter, which would destroy the whole value of the first? If this be an unconstitutional restraint on Congress, the Constitution must be strangely at variance with the dictates both of good sense and sound morals. Did not the First Bank of the United States contain a similar restriction? And have not the states granted bank charters with a condition that, if the charter should be accepted, they would not grant others? States have certainly done so; and, in some instances, where no bonus or premium was paid at all, but from the mere desire to give effect to the charter by inducing individuals to accept it and organize the institution. The President declares that this restriction is not necessary to the efficiency of the bank; but that is the very thing which Congress and his predecessor in office were called on to decide, and which they did decide, when the one passed and the other approved the act. And he has now no more authority to pronounce his judgment on that act than any other individual in society. It is not his province to decide on the constitutionality of statutes which Congress has passed and his predecessors approved. There is another sentiment in this part of the message which we should hardly have expected to find in a paper which is supposed, whoever may have drawn it up, to have passed under the review of professional characters. The message declares that this limitation to create no other bank is unconstitutional because, although Congress may use the discretion vested in them, "they may not limit the discretion of their successors." This reason is almost too superficial to require an answer. Everyone at all accustomed to the consideration of such subjects k