THE ELECTION OF JACKSON, AND THE SPOILS SYSTEM.
In the presidential election of 1828 Jackson and Adams were pitted
against each other as the only candidates before the people, and Jackson
won an overwhelming victory. The followers of the two were fast
developing respectively into Democrats and Whigs, and the parties were
hardening and taking shape, while the dividing lines were being drawn
more clearly and distinctly. But the contest was largely a personal one,
and Jackson's success was due to his own immense popularity more than to
any party principles which he was supposed to represent. Almost the
entire strength of Adams was in the Northeast; but it is absolutely
wrong to assume, because of this fact, that the election even remotely
foreshadowed the way in which party lines would be drawn in the coming
sectional antagonism over slavery. Adams led Jackson in the two slave
states of Maryland and Delaware; and in the free states outside of New
England Jackson had an even greater lead over Adams. East of the
Alleghanies it may here and there have been taken as in some sort a
triumph of the South over the North; but its sectional significance, as
far as it had any, really came from its being a victory of the West over
the East. Infinitely more important than this was the fact that it
represented the overwhelmingly successful upheaval of the most extreme
democratic elements in the community.
Until 1828 all the presidents, and indeed almost all the men who took
the lead in public life, alike in national and in state affairs, had
been drawn from what in Europe would have been called the "upper
classes." They were mainly college-bred men of high social standing, as
well educated as any in the community, usually rich or at least
well-to-do. Their subordinates in office were of much the same material.
It was believed, and the belief was acted upon, that public life needed
an apprenticeship of training and experience. Many of our public men had
been able; almost all had been honorable and upright. The change of
parties in 1800, when the Jeffersonian Democracy came in, altered the
policy of the government, but not the character of the officials. In
that movement, though Jefferson had behind him the mass of the people as
the rank and file of his party, yet all his captains were still drawn
from among the men in the same social position as himself. The
Revolutionary War had been fought under the leadership of the colonial
gentry; and for years after it was over the people, as a whole, felt
that their interests could be safely intrusted to and were identical
with those of the descendants of their revolutionary leaders. The
classes in which were to be found almost all the learning, the talent,
the business activity, and the inherited wealth and refinement of the
country, had also hitherto contributed much to the body of its rulers.
The Jacksonian Democracy stood for the revolt against these rulers; its
leaders, as well as their followers, all came from the mass of the
people. The majority of the voters supported Jackson because they felt
he was one of themselves, and because they understood that his election
would mean the complete overthrow of the classes in power and their
retirement from the control of the government. There was nothing to be
said against the rulers of the day; they had served the country and all
its citizens well, and they were dismissed, not because the voters could
truthfully allege any wrong-doing whatsoever against them, but solely
because, in their purely private and personal feelings and habits of
life, they were supposed to differ from the mass of the people. This
was such an outrageously absurd feeling that the very men who were
actuated by it, or who, like Benton, shaped and guided it, were ashamed
to confess the true reason of their actions, and tried to cloak it
behind an outcry, as vague and senseless as it was clamorous, against
"aristocratic corruption" and other shadowy and spectral evils. Benton
even talked loosely of "retrieving the country from the deplorable
condition in which the enlightened classes had sunk it," although the
country was perfectly prosperous and in its usual state of quiet,
healthy growth. On the other hand, the opponents of Jackson indulged in
talk almost as wild, and fears even more extravagant than his
supporters' hopes; and the root of much of their opposition lay in a
concealed but still existent caste antagonism to a man of Jackson's
birth and bringing up. In fact, neither side, in spite of all their loud
talk of American Republicanism, had yet mastered enough of its true
spirit to be able to see that so long as public officers did their whole
duty to all classes alike, it was not in the least the affair of their
constituents whether they chose to spend their hours of social
relaxation in their shirt-sleeves or in dress coats.
The change was a great one; it was not a change of the policy under
which the government was managed, as in Jefferson's triumph, but of the
men who controlled it. The two great democratic victories had little in
common; almost as little as had the two great leaders under whose
auspices they were respectively won,--and few men were ever more unlike
than the scholarly, timid, and shifty doctrinaire, who supplanted the
elder Adams, and the ignorant, headstrong, and straightforward soldier,
who was victor over the younger. That the change was the deliberate
choice of the great mass of the people, and that it was one for the
worse, was then, and has been ever since, the opinion of most thinking
men; certainly the public service then took its first and greatest step
in that downward career of progressive debasement and deterioration
which has only been checked in our own days. But those who would,
off-hand, decry the democratic principle on this account would do well
to look at the nearly contemporaneous career of the pet heroes of a
trans-Atlantic aristocracy before passing judgment. A very charming
English historian of our day[1] has compared Wellington with Washington;
it would have been far juster to have compared him with Andrew Jackson.
Both were men of strong, narrow minds and bitter prejudices, with few
statesmanlike qualities, who, for brilliant military services, were
raised to the highest civil positions in the gift of the state. The
feeling among the aristocratic classes of Great Britain in favor of the
Iron Duke was nearly as strong and quite as unreasonable as was the
homage paid by their homelier kinsfolk across the Atlantic to Old
Hickory. Wellington's military successes were far greater, for he had
more chances; but no single feat of his surpassed the remarkable victory
won against his ablest lieutenant and choicest troops by a much smaller
number of backwoods riflemen under Andrew Jackson. As a statesman
Wellington may have done less harm than Jackson, for he had less
influence; but he has no such great mark to his credit as the old
Tennessean's attitude toward the Nullifiers. If Jackson's election is a
proof that the majority is not always right, Wellington's elevation may
be taken as showing that the minority, or a fraction thereof, is in its
turn quite as likely to be wrong.
[1: Justin McCarthy.]
This caste antagonism was the distinguishing feature in the election of
1828, and the partially sectional character of the contest was due to
the different degree of development the caste spirit had reached in
different portions of the Union. In New England wealth was quite evenly
distributed, and education and intelligence were nearly universal; so
there the antagonism was slight, the bulk of the New England vote being
given, as usually before and since, in favor of the right candidate. In
the Middle States, on the contrary, the antagonism was very strong. In
the South it was of but little political account as between the whites
themselves, they all being knit together by the barbarous bond of a
common lordship of race; and here the feeling for Jackson was largely
derived from the close kinship still felt for the West. In the West
itself, where Jackson's great strength lay, the people were still too
much on the same plane of thought as well as of material prosperity, and
the wealthy and cultivated classes were of too limited extent to admit
of much caste feeling against the latter; and, accordingly, instead of
hostility to them, the Western caste spirit took the form of hostility
to their far more numerous representatives who had hitherto formed the
bulk of the political rulers of the East.
New England was not only the most advanced portion of the Union, as
regards intelligence, culture, and general prosperity, but was also most
disagreeably aware of the fact, and was possessed with a self-conscious
virtue that was peculiarly irritating to the Westerners, who knew that
they were looked down upon, and savagely resented it on every occasion;
and, besides, New England was apt to meddle in affairs that more nearly
concerned other localities. Several of Benton's speeches, at this time,
show this irritation against the Northeast, and also incidentally bring
out the solidarity of interest felt throughout the West. In a long and
able speech, favoring the repeal of the iniquitous "salt tax," or high
duty on imported salt (a great hobby of his, in which, after many
efforts, he was finally successful), he brought out the latter point
very strongly, besides complaining of the disproportionate lightness of
the burden imposed upon the Northeast by the high tariff, of which he
announced himself to be but a moderate adherent. In common with all
other Western statesmen, he resented keenly the suspicion with which the
Northeast was then only too apt to regard the West, quoting in one of
his speeches with angry resentment a prevalent New England sneer at "the
savages beyond the Alleghanies." At the time we are speaking of it must
be remembered that many even of the most advanced Easterners were
utterly incapable of appreciating the almost limitless capacity of their
country for growth and expansion, being in this respect far behind their
Western brethren; indeed, many regarded the acquisition of any new
territory in the West with alarm and regret, as tending to make the
Union of such unwieldy size that it would break of its own weight.
Benton was the leading opponent of a proposal, introduced by Senator
Foot of Connecticut, to inquire into the expediency of limiting the
sales of public lands to such lands as were then in the market. The
limitation would have been most injurious to the entire West, which was
thus menaced by the action of a New Englander, while Benton appeared as
the champion of the whole section, North and South alike, in the speech
wherein he strenuously and successfully opposed the adoption of the
resolution, and at the same time bitterly attacked the quarter of the
country from which it came, as having from the earliest years opposed
everything that might advance the interests of the people beyond the
Alleghanies. Webster came to the assistance of the mover of the measure
in a speech wherein, among other things, he claimed for the North the
merit of the passage of the Ordinance of 1787, in relation to the
Northwest Territory, and especially of the anti-slavery clause therein
contained. But Benton here caught him tripping, and in a very good
speech showed that he was completely mistaken in his facts. The debate
now, however, completely left the point at issue, taking a bitterly
sectional turn, and giving rise to the famous controversy between
Hayne, of South Carolina, who for the first time on the floor of the
Senate announced the doctrine of nullification, and Webster, who, in
response to his antagonist, voiced the feeling of the Union men of the
North in that wonderful and magnificent speech known ever since under
the name of the "Reply to Hayne," and the calling forth of which will
henceforward be Hayne's sole title to fame. Benton, though himself a
strong Union and anti-nullification man, was still too excited over the
subject-matter of the bill and the original discussion over it to
understand that the debate had ranged off upon matters of infinitely
greater importance, and entirely failed to realize that he had listened
to the greatest piece of oratory of the century. On the contrary,
encouraged by his success earlier in the debate, he actually attempted a
kind of reply to Webster, attacking him with invective and sarcasm as an
alarmist, and taunting him with the memory of the Hartford Convention,
which had been held by members of the Federalist party, to which Webster
himself had once belonged. Benton afterwards became convinced that
Webster's views were by no means those of a mere alarmist, and frankly
stated that he had been wrong in his position; but at the time, heated
by his original grievance, as a Western man, against New England, he
failed entirely to understand the true drift of Hayne's speech. Much of
New England's policy to the West was certainly excessively
narrow-minded.
Jackson's administration derives a most unenviable notoriety as being
the one under which the "spoils system" became, for the first time,
grafted on the civil service of the nation; appointments and removals in
the public service being made dependent upon political qualifications,
and not, as hitherto, upon merit or capacity. Benton, to his honor,
always stoutly opposed this system. It is unfair to assert that Jackson
was the originator of this method of appointment; but he was certainly
its foster-father, and more than any one else is responsible for its
introduction into the affairs of the national government. Despite all
the Eastern sneers at the "savages" of the West, it was from Eastern men
that this most effective method of debauching political life came. The
Jacksonian Democrats of the West, when they introduced it into the
working of the federal government, simply copied the system which they
found already firmly established by their Eastern allies in New York and
Pennsylvania. For many years the course of politics throughout the
country had been preparing and foreshadowing the advent of the "spoils
system." The greatest single stroke in its favor had been done at the
instigation of Crawford, when that scheming politician was seeking the
presidency, and, to further his ends, he procured the passage by
Congress of a law limiting the term of service of all public officials
to four years, thus turning out of office all the fifty thousand public
servants during each presidential term. This law has never been
repealed, every low politician being vitally interested in keeping it as
it is, and accordingly it is to be found on the statute-books at the
present day; and though it has the company of some other very bad
measures, it still remains very much the worst of all, as regards both
the evil it has done and that which it is still doing. This four years'
limitation law was passed without comment or protest, every one voting
in its favor, its probable working not being comprehended in the least.
Says Benton, who, with all his colleagues, voted for it: "The object of
the law was to pass the disbursing officers every four years under the
supervision of the appointing power, for the inspection of their
accounts, in order that defaulters might be detected and dropped, while
the faithful should be ascertained and continued.... It was found to
operate contrary to its intent, and to have become the facile means of
getting rid of faithful disbursing officers, instead of retaining
them." New York has always had a low political standard, one or the
other of its great party and factional organizations, and often both or
all of them, being at all times most unlovely bodies of excessively
unwholesome moral tone. Aaron Burr introduced the "spoils system" into
her state affairs, and his methods were followed and improved upon by
Marcy, Wright, Van Buren, and all the "Albany Regency." In 1829 these
men found themselves an important constituent portion of the winning
party, and immediately, by the help of the only too willing Jackson,
proceeded to apply their system to affairs at Washington. It was about
this time that, in the course of a debate in the Senate, Marcy gave
utterance to the now notorious maxim, "To the victors belong the
spoils."
Under Adams the non-partisan character of the public service had been
guarded with a scrupulous care that could almost be called exaggerated.
Indeed, Adams certainly went altogether too far in his non-partisanship
when it came to appointing cabinet and other high officers, his views on
such points being not only fantastic, but absolutely wrong. The
colorless character of his administration was largely due to his having,
in his anxiety to avoid blind and unreasoning adherence to party,
committed the only less serious fault of paying too little heed to
party; for a healthy party spirit is prerequisite to the performance of
effective work in American political life. Adams was not elected purely
for himself, but also on account of the men and the principles that he
was supposed to represent; and when he partly surrounded himself with
men of opposite principles, he just so far, though from the best of
motives, betrayed his supporters, and rightly forfeited much of their
confidence. But, under him, every public servant felt that, so long as
he faithfully served the state, his position was secure, no matter what
his political opinions might be.
With the incoming of the Jacksonians all this changed, and terribly for
the worse. A perfect reign of terror ensued among the office-holders. In
the first month of the new administration more removals took place than
during all the previous administrations put together. Appointments were
made with little or no attention to fitness, or even honesty, but solely
because of personal or political services. Removals were not made in
accordance with any known rule at all; the most frivolous pretexts were
sufficient, if advanced by useful politicians who needed places already
held by capable incumbents. Spying and tale-bearing became prominent
features of official life, the meaner office-holders trying to save
their own heads by denouncing others. The very best men were
unceremoniously and causelessly dismissed; gray-headed clerks, who had
been appointed by the earlier presidents,--by Washington, the elder
Adams, and Jefferson,--being turned off at an hour's notice, although a
quarter of a century's faithful work in the public service had unfitted
them to earn their living elsewhere. Indeed, it was upon the best and
most efficient men that the blow fell heaviest; the spies, tale-bearers,
and tricksters often retained their positions. In 1829 the public
service was, as it always had been, administered purely in the interest
of the people; and the man who was styled the especial champion of the
people dealt that service the heaviest blow it has ever received.
Benton himself always took a sound stand on the civil service question,
although his partisanship led him at times to defend Jackson's course
when he must have known well that it was indefensible. He viewed with
the greatest alarm and hostility the growth of the "spoils system," and
early introduced, as chairman of a special committee, a bill to repeal
the harmful four years' limitation act. In discussing this proposed bill
afterwards, he wrote, in words that apply as much at this time as they
did then: "The expiration of the four years' term came to be considered
as the termination and vacation of all the offices on which it fell,
and the creation of vacancies to be filled at the option of the
president. The bill to remedy this defect gave legal effect to the
original intention of the law by confining the vacation of office to
actual defaulters. The power of the president to dismiss civil officers
was not attempted to be curtailed, but the restraints of responsibility
were placed upon its exercise by requiring the cause of dismission to be
communicated to Congress in each case. The section of the bill to that
effect was in these words: _That in all nominations made by the
president to the Senate, to fill vacancies occasioned by an exercise of
the president's power to remove from office, the fact of the removal
shall be stated to the Senate at the same time that the nomination is
made, with a statement of the reasons for which such officer may have
been removed._ This was intended to operate as a restraint upon removals
without cause."
In the "Thirty Years' View" he again writes, in language which would be
appropriate from every advanced civil service reformer of the present
day, that is, from every disinterested man who has studied the workings
of the "spoils system" with any intelligence:--
I consider "sweeping" removals, as now practiced by both parties, a
great political evil in our country, injurious to individuals, to
the public service, to the purity of elections, and to the harmony
and union of the people. Certainly no individual has a right to an
office; no one has an estate or property in a public employment; but
when a mere ministerial worker in a subordinate station has learned
its duties by experience and approved his fidelity by his conduct,
it is an injury to the public service to exchange him for a novice
whose only title to the place may be a political badge or partisan
service. It is exchanging experience for inexperience, tried ability
for untried, and destroying the incentive to good conduct by
destroying its reward. To the party displaced it is an injury, he
having become a proficient in that business, expecting to remain in
it during good behavior, and finding it difficult, at an advanced
age, and with fixed habits, to begin a new career in some new walk
of life. It converts elections into scrambles for office, and
degrades the government into an office for rewards and punishments;
and divides the people of the Union into two adverse parties, each
in its turn, and as it becomes dominant, to strip and proscribe the
other.
Benton had now taken the position which he was for many years to hold,
as the recognized senatorial leader of a great and well-defined party.
Until 1828 the prominent political chiefs of the nation had either been
its presidents, or had been in the cabinets of these presidents. But
after Jackson's time they were in the Senate, and it was on this body
that public attention was concentrated. Jackson's cabinet itself showed
such a falling off, when compared with the cabinets of any of his
predecessors, as to justify the caustic criticism that, when he took
office, there came in "the millennium of the minnows." In the Senate, on
the contrary, there were never before or since so many men of commanding
intellect and powers. Calhoun had been elected as vice-president on the
Jacksonian ticket, and was thus, in 1829, presiding over the body of
which he soon became an active member; Webster and Clay were already
taking their positions as the leaders of the great National Republican,
or, as it was afterwards called, Whig party.
When the rupture between Calhoun and the Jacksonian Democrats, and the
resignation of the former from the vice-presidency took place, three
parties developed in the United States Senate. One was composed of the
Jacksonian Democrats, with Benton at their head; one was made up of the
little band of Nullifiers, led by Calhoun; and the third included the
rather loose array of the Whigs, under Clay and Webster. The feeling of
the Jacksonians towards Calhoun and the Nullifiers and towards Clay and
the Clay Whigs were largely those of personal animosity; but they had
very little of this sentiment towards Webster and his associates, their
differences with them being on questions of party principle, or else
proceeding from merely sectional causes.