Who said yankee tariff of abomination

Gedney, as property, and salvage claimed on them, and under that process were taken into the Custody of the marshal as property. Then they were claimed by Ruiz and Montes and again taken into custody by the court. The District Attorney of Connecticut wrote to the Secretary of State, September 5th, giving him an account of the matter, stating that " the blacks are indicted for the murder of the captain and mate," and " are now in jail at New Haven ;" that " the next term of our Circuit Court sits on the 17th instant, at which time I suppose," —that is in italics in the printed document—" I suppose it will be my duty to bring them to trial, unless they are in some other way disposed of.

And he closes by saying—"should you hare any instructions to give on the subject, I should line to receive them as soon as may be. On the 9th of September, he writes again that he has examined the law, which has brought him fully to the conclusion that the Courts of the United States cannot take cognizance of any offense these people may hare committed, as it was done on board a vessel belonging to a foreign state.

And then he says,. This is the second intimation from the District Attorney. We shall find others. Now it appears that the Africans were fully in the custody of the Court, first on the criminal charge, and then on the claim to them as property. The Court was to sit in eight days, the District Attorney is satisfied they cannot be tried, and be is anxious to know whether they cannot be disposed of in some way by the Executive, so that the Courts of the United States may have no chance to decide upon the case.

May it please your Honors, I am simply pursuing the chain of evidence in this case, to show the effects of the sympathy in favor of one of the parties and against the other, which the Secretary of State says had become in a manner " national.

Calderon's application will be immediately transmitted to the President for his decision upon it, with which you will be made acquainted without unnecessary delay.

In the mean time you will take care that no proceeding of your Circuit Court, or of any other judicial tribunal, places the vessel, cargo, or slaves beyond the control of the Federal Executive. I know not how, in decent language, to speak of this assertion of the Secretary, that the minister of Her Catholic Majesty had claimed the Africans " as Spanish property.

When they wished to characterize a declaration as absolutely contrary to truth, they say the man has " said tee thing that is not. But I wish first to beg your Honors' special attention to some thing else in this remarkable letter of the Secretary of State. He says, " In the mean time, you will take care that no proceeding of your Circuit Court, or of any other judicial tribunal, places.

How was he to do it? In what manner was an Executive officer to proceed, so that neither the Circuit Court of the United States, nor any state Court, could dispose of the vessel or the men in any manner, beyond the control of the Federal Executive.

A farther examination of the correspondence in the conclusion, will show how it was intended to be done. But I now come to inquire what was the real demand of the Spanish minister, and to show what was the duty of the Secretary of State on receiving such a de mend.

The name of this gentleman is illustrious in the annals of Spain, and for himself personally, during his residence in this country, I have entertained the most friendly and respectful sentiments.

I have enjoyed frequent interviews with him, and have found him intelligent, amiable, learned, and courteous. I wish therefore to say nothing respecting him that is personally disrespectful or unkind. But it is my duty to comment with the utmost plainness, and what perhaps your Honors will think severity, on his official letter to the American Secretary of State. His letter begins: —. Forsyth is already informed, and in consequence of which it is the imperious duty of the undersigned to claim an observance of the law of nations' and of the treaties existing between the United States and Spain.

The occurrence alluded to is the capture of the Spanish schooner ' Amistad. Here your Honors will observe the same distinction of " merchandise and Negroes," which was made by the District Attorney, showing the universal sense of the difference between merchandise and persons. He goes on:. These they retained, that they might navigate the vessel and take her to the coast of Africa.

Montes, availing himself of his knowledge of nautical affairs, and under favor of Divine Providence— 'the favor of Divine Providence! He was spoken by various vessels, from the captains of which the Negroes bought provisions, but to whom, it seems, he was unable to make known his distress, being closely watched. That conduct will be appreciated as it deserves by my august sovereign, and by the Spanish government, and will be reciprocated on similar occasions by the Spaniards— a people ever grateful for benefits received.

The under signed is willing to believe that such would have been the case, had the general government been able to interpose its authority in the first instance, as it has probably done during the short interval between the occurrence of this affair and the period when the undersigned received an authentic statement of the facts. This is what the Spanish minister demanded, that the vessel should be set at liberty, and the Negroes sent to Cuba to be tried. And he is so confident in the disposition the United States in favor of this demand, that he even presumes the President of the United States had already immediately dispatched an order to the Court in Connecticut, to stay its proceedings and deliver up the Negroes, to the Government of Spain.

What combination of ideas led to that conclusion, in the mind of Mr. Calderon, I am not competent to say. He evidently supposes the President of the United States to possess what we understand by arbitrary power—the power to decide cases and to dispose of persons and of property, mero motu, at his own discretion, and without the intervention of any court.

What led him to this imagination I am unable to say. He goes on to say that the officers of the Washington, in the service of the United States, have presented to that incompetent Court, —the U. District Court in Connecticut—a petition, claiming salvage: " a claim which, in view of existing treaties, the undersigned conceives can.

The deliverers of these two Spaniards, the representative of a most grateful nation insists, are not deserving of any recompense whatever! Now, I beg your Honors to see if there is, among all these specifications, any one demand that corresponds with that which the Secretary of State appears to have been made. He demands,. That the vessel be immediately delivered up to her owner, together with every article found on board at the time of her capture by the Washington, without any payment being exacted on the score of salvage, or any charges made, other than those specified in the treaty of , article 1st.

That it be declared that no tribunal in the United States has the right to institute proceedings against, or to impose penalties upon, the subjects of Spain, for crimes committed on board a Spanish vessel, and in the waters of the Spanish territory. Declared, by whom? By the President of the United States.

Of course, he does not demand that the " incompetent tribunal" in Connecticut, before which the suit was brought, should declare this, but that the President of the United States should issue a proclamation, declaring that no court in this country could hold cognizance of the case. Is there in this a demand that the net "roes should be delivered up as Spanish property? It is a direct protest against any judicial tribunal taking cognizance of the case, and that the President should issue a proclamation to prevent any such proceedings whatever.

That the Negroes be conveyed to Havana, or be placed at the disposal of the proper authorities in that part of Her Majesty's dominions, in order to their being tried by the Spanish laws which the, have violated; and that, in the mean time, they be kept in safe custody, in order to prevent their evasion. In what capacity does he demand that the President of the United States should place himself? Is it a demand to deliver up these people as property?

Is it that they should deliver them to the minister himself, as the representative of the Spanish government, to be disposed of according to the laws of Spain? Was ever such a demand made upon any government? He must seize these people and keep them safely, and carry them, at the expense of the United States, to another country to be tried for their fires! Where in the law of nations there a warrant for such a demand? May it please your Honors—If the President of the United States had arbitrary and unqualified power, he could not satisfy these demands.

He must keep them as a jailer; he must then send them beyond seas to be tried for their lives. I will not recur to the Declaration of Independence—your Honors have it implanted in your hearts—but one of the grievous charges brought against George III. That was one of the most odious of those acts of tyranny which occasioned the American revolution.

The whole of the reasoning is not applicable to this case, but I submit to your Honors that, if the President has the power to do it in the case of Africans. By a simple order to the marshal of the district, he could just as well seize forty citizens of the United States, on the demand of a foreign minister, and send them beyond seas for trial before a foreign court.

The Spanish minister farther demands—. That if, in consequence of the intervention of the authorities of Connecticut, there should be any delay in the desired delivery of the vessel and the slaves, the owners both of the former be indemnified for the injury that may accrue to them.

Now, how are all these demands to be put together? First, he demands that the United States shall keep them safely, and send them to Cuba, all in a lump, the children as well as Cinque and Grabbo. Next, he denies the power of our courts to take any cognizance of the case. And finally, that the owners of the slaves shall be indemnified for any injury they may sustain in their property.

We see in the whole of this transaction, a confusion of ideas and a contradiction of positions from confounding together the two capacities in which these people are attempted to be held. One moment they are viewed as merchandise, and the next as persons. The Spanish minister, the Secretary of State, and every one who has had anything to do with the case, all have run into these absurdities. These demands are utterly inconsistent. First, they are demanded as persons, as the subjects of Spain, to be delivered up as criminals, to be tried for their lives, and liable to be executed on the gibbet.

Then they are demanded as chattels, the same as so many bags of coffee, or bales of cotton, belonging to owners, who have a right to be indemnified for any injury to their property.

I now ask if there is, in any one or in all those specifications, that demand which the Secretary of State avers the Spanish Minister had made, and which is the basis of the whole proceeding in this case on the part of the Executive. The letter of the Secretary, which is the foundation of the whole proceeding of the District Attorney, in making the United States a party, on the ground of a demand by the Spanish Minister for the delivery of these people as property, " says the thing that is not.

Forsyth by supposing it in t;. This is what the logicians call argumentum ad hominem—an appeal, first to the feelings of the individual, not to his sense of justice. He then brings up to Mr. Forsyth his own construction of the law of nations, as given in another case, which he deems analogous. Perhaps I may be justified in conjecturing to what case he alludes, and I will say that, if he alludes to any case of public notoriety, I shall be able to show, before I close, that there is no analogy to this case.

Calderon de la Barca then refers to several treaty stipulations in support of his demand, and particularly the 8th, 9th, and 10th articles of the treaty of , continued in force by the treaty of In case the subjects and inhabitants of either party, with their shipping, whether public and of war, or private and of merchants, be forced, through stress of weather, pursuit of pirates or enemies, or any other urgent necessity, for seeking of shelter and harbor, to retreat and enter into any of the rivers, bays, roads, or ports, belonging to the other party, they shall be received and treated with all humanity, and enjoy all favor, protection, and help; and they shall be permitted to refresh and provide themselves, at reasonable rates, with victuals and all things needful for the subsistence of their persons, or reparation of their ships, and prosecution of their voyage; and they shall no ways be hindered from returning out of the said ports or roads, but may remove and depart when and whither they please, without any let or hindrance.

This is a provision for vessels with their owners, driven into port by distress. Who was the Spanish owner here with his ship? There was none. I say the Africans were here with their ship. If you say the original owner is referred to, in whose name the ship's register was given, he was dead, he was not on board, and would not claim the benefit of this article. The vessel either belonged to the Africans, in whose possession it was found, and who certainly kind what is everywhere the first evidence of property, or there was no person to whom this article could apply, and it was not casus foederis.

The truth is, this article was not intended to apply to such a case as this, but to the common case, in regard to which it has doubtless been carried into execution hundreds of times, in meeting the common disasters of maritime life. The Africans, who certainly had the prima facie title to the property, did not bring the vessel into our waters themselves, but were brought here against their will, by the two Spaniards, by stratagem and deception. Now, if this court should consider, as the courts below have done, that the original voyage from Lomboko, in Africa, was continued by the Spaniards in the Amistad, and that pursuing that voyage was a violation of the laws of the United States, then the Spaniards are responsible for that offense.

The deed begun in Africa was not consummated according to its original intention, until the Negroes were landed at their port of final destination in Porto Principe.

The clandestine landing in Havana, the unlawful sale in the barracoons, the shipment on board the Amistad, were all parts of the original transaction. And it was in pursuit of that original unlawful intent that the Spaniards brought the vessel by stratagem into a port of the United States. Does the treaty apply to such voyages?

Suppose the owner had been on board, and his voyage lawful, what does the treaty secure to him? Why, that he might repair his ship, and purchase refreshments, and continue his voyage. Ruiz and Montes could not continue the voyage. But, suppose the article applicable, and what were the United States to do? They must place those on board the ship in the situation they were in when taken, that is, the Africans in possession, with the two Spaniards as their prisoners, or their slaves, as the case might be; the Negroes as masters of the ship, to continue their voyage, which on their part was certainly lawful.

If any part of the article was applicable to the case it was in favor of the Africans. They were in distress, and were brought into our waters by their enemies' by those who sought, and who are still' seeking, to reduce them from freedom to slavery, as a reward for having spared their lives in the fight. If the good offices of the government are to be rendered to the proprietors of shipping in distress, they are due to the Africans only, and the United States are now bound to restore the ship to the Africans, and replace the Spaniards on board as prisoners.

But the article is not applicable at all. It is not a casus federis. The parties to the treaty never could have had any such case in view.. The transaction on board of the vessel after leaving Havana entirely changed the circumstances of the parties, and conferred rights on my most unfortunate clients, which cannot but be regarded by this honorable court.

All ships and merchandise, of what nature so ever, which shall be rescued out of the hands of any pirates or robbers on the high seas, shall be brought into some port of either state, and shall be delivered to the custody of the officers of that port, in order to be taken care of, and restored entire to the true proprietor, as soon as due and sufficient proof shall be made concerning the property thereof. Was this ship rescued out of the hands of pirates and robbers?

Is this Court competent to declare it? The Courts below have decided that they have no authority to try, criminally, what happened on board the vessel. They have then no right to regard those who forcibly took possession of the vessel as pirates and robbers.

If the sympathies of Lieutenant Gedney, which the Secretary of State says had become national, had been felt for all the parties, in due proportion to their sufferings and their deserts, who were the pirates and robbers, Were they the Africans? When they were brought from Lomboko? And when the same voyage, in fact, was continued in the Amistad, and the Africans were in a perishing condition in the hands of Ruiz, dropping dead from day to day under his treatment, were they the pirates and robbers?

Ruiz says in his libel that nine had died before they reached our shores. The marshal's return shows that they were dying day after day from the effects of their sufferings. One died before the Court sat at New London. Three more died before the return was made to the Court at Hartford—only seventeen days—and three more between that and November.

Sixteen fell victims before November, and from that time not one has died. Think only of the relief and benefit of being restored to the absolute wants of human nature. Although p]aced in a condition which, if applied to forty citizens of the United States, we should call cruel, shut up eighteen months in a prison, and enjoying only the tenderness which our laws provide for the worst of criminals, so great is the improvement of their condition from what it was in the hands of Ruiz, that they have perfectly recovered their health, and not one has died; when, before that time, they were perishing from hour to hour.

At the great day of accounts, may it please the Court, who is to be responsible for those sixteen souls that died I Ruiz claims those sixteen as his property, as merchandise. Who, then, are the tyrants and oppressors against whom our laws are invoked?

Who are the innocent sufferers, for whom we are called upon to protect this ship against enemies and robbers Certainly not Ruiz and Montes. But, independently of this consideration, the article cannot apt ply to slaves. It says ships and merchandise. Is that language applicable to human beings? Will this Court so affirm? It says they shall be restored entire. Is it a treaty between cannibal nations, that a stipulation is needed for the restoration of merchandise entire, to prevent parties from cutting off the legs and arms of human beings before they are delivered up?

The very word entire in the stipulation is of itself a sufficient exclusion of human beings from the scope of the article.

But if it was intended to embrace human beings, the article would have included a provision for their subsistence until they are restored, and an indemnification for their maintenance to the officers who are charged with the execution of the stipulation. And there is perhaps needed a provision with regard to the institutions of the free states, to prevent a difficulty in keeping human beings in the custom house, without having them liable to the operation of the local law, the habeas corpus, and the rights of freedom.

But with regard to article 9, I will speak of my own knowledge, for it happened that on the renewal of the treaty in , the whole of the negotiations with the then minister of Spain passed through my hands, and I am certain that neither of us ever entertained an idea that this word merchandise was to apply to human beings. When any vessel of either party shall be wrecked, foundered, or otherwise damaged, on the coasts or within the do minion of the other, their respective subjects or citizens shall receive, as well for themselves as for their vessels and effects, the same assistance which would be due to the inhabitants of the country where the damage happens, and shall pay the same charges and dues only as the said inhabitants would be subject to pay in a like case; and if the operations of repair should require that the whole or any part of the cargo be unladen, they shall pay no duties, charges, or fees, on the pelt which they shall relayed and carry away.

This article, again, has nothing to do with the case. The Amistad was neither wrecked nor foundered, nor otherwise damaged. She came into our waters voluntarily, so far as the Spaniards were concerned, but involuntarily, so far as concerned the Africans, who were in possession of the vessel.

They were intentionally prosecuting a voyage to Africa, but were brought to our shores by deception, and against their wills. This is not casus federis. The treaty has no application here. But if, by any latitude of construction, it could be applied, its benefits belong to the Africans, for they were pursuing a lawful voyage, and not to the Spaniards, who were on an unlawful voyage, in the prosecution of the slave trade.

But the article says the same assistance shall be afforded that our own citizens would be entitled to receive in like circumstances. Let us apply the rule. Suppose the Amistad had been a vessel of the United States, owned and manned by citizens of the United States, and in like circumstances. The captain would be seized, tried as a pirate, and hung!

And every person concerned, either as owners or on board the ship, would be severely punished. The law makes it a capital offense for the captain, and no appeal to this Court would save him from the gibbet. Is that the assistance which the Spanish minister invokes for Ruiz and Montes? That is what our laws would secure to our own citizens in like circumstances. And perhaps it would be a reward nearer their merits than the restoration of these poor Negroes to them, or enabling them to complete their voyage.

But my clients are claimed under the treaty as merchandise, rescued from pirates and robbers. Who were the merchandise, and who were the robbers? According to the construction of the Spanish minister, the merchandise were the robbers, and the robbers were the merchandise. The merchandise was rescued out of its own hands, and the robbers were rescued out of the hands of the robbers.

Is this the meaning of the treaty? Will this Court adopt a rule of construction in regard to solemn treaties that will sanction such conclusions, There is a rule in Vattel that no construction shall be allowed to a treaty which makes it absurd. Is any thing more absurd than to say these forty Africans are robbers, out of whose hands they have themselves been rescued? Can a greater absurdity be imagined in construction than this, which applies the double character of robbers and of merchandise to human beings?

May it please your Honors, there is not one article of the treaty that has the slightest application to this case, and the Spanish minister has no more ground for appealing to the treaty, as a warrant for his demand, than he has for relying on the law of nations. The next argument that follows is so peculiar that I find it difficult to give a distinct idea of its purpose or application. He says,. These, on learning that the crime alluded to had been committed with impunity, and their friends would not fail to acquaint them with the fact would lose none of the opportunities for attempting revolt and evasion, which are afforded by the frequent and daily necessity of conveying Negroes by sea from one quarter of the island to another; and to guard against this it would be necessary to use additional precautions at a great expense.

I believe, may it please the Court, that this is not a good argument before this court to determine questions of law and justice by the consideration that there are American citizens who own plantations in the island of Cuba, which they cultivate by the labor of slaves.

They own their plantations and slaves there, subject to the laws of Spain, which laws declare the African slave trade to be felony. The Spanish minister has no right to appeal to our courts to pass a particular sentence between parties in a suit, by considerations of their personal interest, or that of other American citizens in the Island of Cuba.

What would become of the liberties of this nation if our courts are to pass sentence between parties, upon considerations of the effect it may have upon the interest of American citizens, scattered as they may be in all parts of the world? If it is a valid consideration when applied to Cuba and the American owners of sugar estates and slaves there, it applies equally to all other countries where American citizens may have property; to China, Hindostan, or the Feejee Islands. It was no proper argument for the Spanish minister to urge upon the American Secretary of State.

It was undoubtedly calculated and designed to influence his sympathy in the case—that sympathy with one of the parties which he says had become national It was calculated to excite and to influence the Secretary of State not only by the effect to be produced in the island of Cuba, but perhaps also by a reward to certain interests nearer home.

Was that a ground on which courts of justice will decide cases? I t rust not. There are a few portions of this letter, which I had rather your Honors would read when you are together in consultation, than to read them myself in this place. I will not trust myself to comment upon them as they deserve. Calderon proceeds to say,. In such case, the indemnification I officially ask for the owners would be n very slender compensation; for, if the property remained unimpaired, as it would remain, the satisfaction due to the public would not be accorded.

And that is a reason why the President of the United States was to issue his lettrede cachet, and send these unfortunate individuals to Cuba. I abstain now from reading the subsequent passages. He concluded by saying,.

The Spanish Government, for the protection of their property, would immediately accord the extradition of any slaves that might take refuge there from the southern states. Being itself exact in the observance of treaties, it claims the more justly the execution of them, and a reciprocal good correspondence, from a nation, the ally and neighbor of Spain, to whom so many proofs have been afforded of the high degree in which her friendship is esteemed.

They will readily yield fugitive slaves! Was this an argument, I ask the honorable Court, to be addressed to the Secretary of State? Is it upon these principles that cases are to be decided? Is it by these considerations that the action of governments? Shall these men be given up on the offer of an equivalent? The learned Attorney General, I think, read some authorities to show that this Governor has royal powers, about equal to those of the King, and it may be easy for him to seize any man, black or white, slave or free, who may be claimed as a slave, and send him beyond seas for any purpose.

If he is to do them, I should hope, at least, that it might be under treaty stipulations rather more adapted to the object than these. It was going quite far enough, I should think, to require the President of the U. I have now, may it please the Court, examined at great length, and with tedious detail, the letter of the Spanish minister demanding the interposition of the national Executive to restore these unfortunate Africans to the island of Cuba.

And now I may in. And in the first place, what did he do? His first act was, to misrepresent the demand, and to write to the District Attorney in Connecticut, directing him to pursue a claim for the possession of these people on behalf of the United States, on the ground that the Spanish minister had demanded their delivery to him, as the property of Spanish subjects, and ordering him to take care that no court should place them beyond the control of the Executive.

Andrew Jackson was one of the skeptics. He and many of his supporters blamed the bank for the Panic of , which had become a severe economic depression. The national bank had made that crisis worse, first by lending irresponsibly and then, when the panic hit, by hoarding gold currency to save itself at the expense of smaller banks and their customers.

In , after a few months in office, Jackson set his sights on the bank and its director, Nicholas Biddle. For Jackson, the struggle was a personal crisis. The president vetoed the bill. Clay shows Nicholas Biddle as the Devil running away from Jackson as the bank collapses around him, his hirelings, and speculators. Edward W. Clay, c. In addition, Jackson wrote, the Bank of the United States was virtually a federal agency, but it had powers that were not granted anywhere in the Constitution.

Although its charter would not be renewed, the Bank of the United States could still operate for several more years. So in , to diminish its power, Jackson also directed his cabinet to stop depositing federal funds in it. From now on, the government would do business with selected state banks instead. More than any other issue, opposition to the national bank came to define their beliefs.

And by leading Jackson to exert executive power so dramatically against Congress, the Bank War also helped his political enemies organize. Increasingly, supporters of Andrew Jackson referred to themselves as Democrats.

Under the strategic leadership of Martin Van Buren, they built a highly organized national political party, the first modern party in the United States.

Much more than earlier political parties, this Democratic Party had a centralized leadership structure and a consistent ideological program for all levels of government. Things looked good initially. At the same time, sales of western land by the federal government promoted speculation and poorly regulated lending practices, creating a vast real estate bubble.

Meanwhile, the number of state-chartered banks grew from in to just six years later. As a result, the volume of paper banknotes per capita in circulation in the United States increased by 40 percent between and Low interest rates in Great Britain also encouraged British capitalists to make risky investments in America. As the boom accelerated, banks became more careless about the amount of hard currency they kept on hand to redeem their banknotes. Two further federal actions late in the Jackson administration also worsened the situation.

In June , Congress decided to increase the number of banks receiving federal deposits. This plan undermined the banks that were already receiving federal money, since they saw their funds distributed to other banks. Next, seeking to reduce speculation on credit, the Treasury Department issued an order called the Specie Circular in July , requiring payment in hard currency for all federal land purchases. As a result, land buyers drained eastern banks of even more gold and silver. Federal land sales plummeted.

Runs on banks began in New York on May 4, , as panicked customers scrambled to exchange their banknotes for hard currency. By May 10, the New York banks, running out of gold and silver, stopped redeeming their notes. As news spread, banks around the nation did the same.

The Panic of led to a general economic depression. Between and , the total capital held by American banks dropped by 40 percent as prices fell and economic activity around the nation slowed to a crawl.

The price of cotton in New Orleans, for instance, dropped 50 percent. The destitute people in the foreground representing the common man are suffering while a prosperous attorney rides in an elegant carriage in the background right side of frame. Normal banking activity did not resume around the nation until late Meanwhile, two hundred banks closed, cash and credit became scarce, prices declined, and trade slowed.

During this downturn, eight states and a territorial government defaulted on loans made by British banks to finance internal improvements. The disaster of the Panic of created an opportunity for the Whig Party, which had grown partly out of the political coalition of John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay and opposed Andrew Jackson and the Democratic Party.

The National Republicans, a loose alliance concentrated in the Northeast, had become the core of a new anti-Jackson movement. He also gave the new Whig Party its anti-monarchical name.

They remained divided by regional and ideological differences. But the Whigs gained significant public support after the Panic of , and they became increasingly well organized. In late , they held their first national convention in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Andrew Jackson portrayed himself as the defender of the common man, and in many ways he democratized American politics. Anonymous, c. Harrison was known primarily for defeating Shawnee warriors led by Tecumseh before and during the War of , most famously at the Battle of Tippecanoe in present-day Indiana.

Whig leaders viewed him as a candidate with broad patriotic appeal. To balance the ticket with a southerner, the Whigs nominated a slave-owning Virginia senator, John Tyler, for vice president. Harrison became ill for unclear reasons, though tradition claims he contracted pneumonia after delivering a nearly two-hour inaugural address without an overcoat or hat and died after just thirty-one days in office.

Harrison thus holds the ironic honor of having the longest inaugural address and the shortest term in office of any American president. The Whig Party succeeded in electing two more presidents but remained deeply divided. Its problems grew as the issue of slavery strained the Union in the s. Unable to agree on a consistent national position on slavery, and unable to find another national issue to rally around, the Whigs broke apart by The Whig coalition drew strength from several earlier parties, including two that harnessed American political paranoia.

The Anti-Masonic Party formed in the s for the purpose of destroying the Freemasons. Later, anti-immigrant sentiment formed the American Party, also called the Know-Nothings. The American Party sought and won office across the country in the s, but nativism had already been an influential force, particularly in the Whig Party, whose members could not fail to notice that urban Irish Catholics strongly tended to support Democrats. Freemasonry, an international network of social clubs with arcane traditions and rituals, seems to have originated in medieval Europe as a trade organization for stonemasons.

Prince Hall, a free leather worker in Boston, founded a separate branch of the order for African American men. In s upstate New York, which was fertile soil for new religious and social reform movements, anti-Masonic suspicion would emerge for the first time as an organized political force. The trigger for this was the strange disappearance and probable murder of William Morgan. They launched a series of attempts to prevent the book from being published, including an attempt to burn the press and a conspiracy to have Morgan jailed for alleged debts.

In September, Morgan disappeared. He was last seen being forced into a carriage by four men later identified as Masons. The Morgan story convinced many people that Masonry was a dangerous influence in the republic. The publicity surrounding the trials transformed local outrage into a political movement that, though small, had significant power in New York and parts of New England.

In , local anti-Masonic committees began meeting across the state of New York, committing not to vote for any political candidate who belonged to the Freemasons. In , Anti-Masonic politicians ran for state offices in New York, winning 12 percent of the vote for governor.

In , the Anti-Masons held a national convention in Philadelphia. But after a dismal showing in the presidential elections, the leaders of the Anti-Masonic Party folded their movement into the new Whig Party. Others, called nativists, blamed immigrants. Nativists detected many foreign threats, but Catholicism may have been the most important. Nativists watched with horror as more and more Catholic immigrants especially from Ireland and Germany arrived in American cities.

The immigrants professed different beliefs, often spoke unfamiliar languages, and participated in alien cultural traditions. They feared that Catholics would bring religious violence with them to the United States. In the summer of , a mob of Protestants attacked a Catholic convent near Boston.

The rioters had read newspaper rumors that a woman was being held against her will by the nuns. Angry men broke into the convent and burned it to the ground. Later, a young woman named Rebecca Reed, who had spent time in the convent, published a memoir describing abuses she claimed the nuns had directed toward novices and students. Many Protestants saw the Catholic faith as a superstition that deprived individuals of the right to think for themselves and enslaved them to a dictator, the pope, in Rome.

They accused Catholic priests of controlling their parishioners and preying sexually on young women. They feared that Catholicism would overrun and conquer the American political system, just as their ancestors had feared it would conquer England.

The painter and inventor Samuel F. Over several decades, state governments had lowered their property requirements so poorer men could vote. But as northern states ended slavery, whites worried that free Black men could also go to the polls in large numbers. In response, they adopted new laws that made racial discrimination the basis of American democracy.

Jackson proposed depositing no more funds in the bank and he gradually shrunk existing deposits by using the funds to pay for day-to-day expenditures of the government. The death of the Bank of the United States left a financial vacuum in the American economy. Surplus federal funds were placed in several dozen state banks that were politically supportive of Jackson "pet banks".

Smaller, wildcat banks in the west had begun to issue their own currency. But this " wildcat " currency was extremely unreliable because its value was based upon the value of the bank from which it was issued. In , "wildcat" currency had become so unreliable that Jackson told the Treasury to issue a Specie Circular , a decree that required all public lands to be purchased with metallic money. This drastic step contributed greatly to the financial panic of The Whigs were conservatives who supported government programs, reforms, and public schools.

They called for internal improvements like canals, railroads, and telegraph lines. The Whigs claimed to be defenders of the common man and declared the Democrats the party of corruption. They absorbed the Anti-Masonic Party.

Martin Van Buren was Andrew Jackson's choice as his successor in the election of He won the election. General William Henry Harrison was one of the Whig's many presidential nominees. The Whigs did not win because they did not unite behind just one candidate.

The basic cause of the panic of was rampant speculation by banks. Jacksonian's financial policies also contributed to the panic. In , the failure of two British banks caused British investors to call in foreign loans. These loans were the beginning of the panic. The panic of caused hundreds of banks to collapse, commodity prices to drop, sales of public to fall, and the loss of jobs. The Whigs proposed government policies to fix the economic downturn: expansion of bank credit, higher tariffs, subsidies for internal improvement.

Van Buren rejected these proposals because he wanted to keep government involvement out of the economy. Van Buren proposed the Divorce Bill. Not passed by Congress, it called for separating the government and banking. The Independent Treasury Bill was passed in An independent treasury would be established and government funds would be locked in vaults.

Mexico won its independence from Spain in Because of this, ownership of Texas passed from Spain to Mexico. Mexico gave a large chunk of Texas land to Stephen Austin, who promised to bring families into Texas. Texans differed in many ways from the Mexicans, including the fact that Mexicans were against slavery, while the Texans supported it. Santa Anna: dictator of Mexico; in , he removed Texans' local rights and started to raise army to suppress the rebelling Texans.

Texas declared its independence in Sam Houston: commander in chief for Texas army.