By Warner Todd Huston
In 1860 the leaders of the South felt that they had their backs up against the wall. They felt they were being given the choice between confiscatory taxes in the form of Northern created and controlled tariffs, taxes that would essentially abrogate the uniformity of Federal taxation proscribed by the Constitution of the United States, and seceding from the Union, a right that most assumed was axiomatic. So they determined to start fresh with a new Southern Nation. Among other momentous issues, the tariff was a seminal cause of the American civil war. Naturally, it might be difficult to imagine that taxes and Federal monetary policy were the reason over which an Alabama dock worker or a Georgia yeoman farmer went to war but then dock workers and farmers do not start wars. Politicians do.
Tax revolts are a common aspect of our Nation's early history. The Founding Fathers had a healthy distaste for the taxes imposed upon them by the crown in the days before the revolution just as later Americans harbored similar hatred of their own tax laws. That distaste flavored the thinking of the operation of the Federal government right up until the Civil War and reasserted itself after the war until the constitution itself was altered to allow for the federal income tax. So, just what were those issues?
As Adam Smith, celebrated as the father of capitalism, remarked, "There is no art which one government sooner learns from another than how to drain money from the pockets of the people."(1) And England practiced the maxim well. The Stamp Act, which was a tax on newspapers, written documents and paper, was the first major instigation revealing the distaste for taxation by the American Colonists that would so often be seen in the future. When the Colonists first learned that the stamp act passed in March of 1765 they immediately called for a Congress to meet to draw up a Declaration of Rights for the purpose of pleading with the crown not to initiate the law. The Congress did no good, however, and Parliament ruled that the stamp act would stand.
The Colonists felt their liberty was being threatened without elimination of the stamp act in the summer of 1765. Organized bands of tax resisters calling themselves the Sons of Liberty forced stamp act distributors to resign their offices by threat and violence. These organizations often marched in the streets carrying signs that said such phrases as "Liberty, Property and no Stamps" and "Huzzah for Congress and Liberty".(2) All the uproar over this simple tax levy stumped the British authorities. English politician and writer, Samuel Johnson, wondered why the colonists felt they should be free of British taxes if they enjoyed all the benefits of being British citizens. He maintained that the colonies should be "subject to English government, and chargeable to English taxation." (3) The English government simply misunderstood the American's position and, consequently, the taxes stood once again.
As the stamp act proceeded the colonists avoided it by boycotting English goods and smuggling illegal products from other countries causing English commerce to suffer terribly. Since many British merchants were not in favor of the stamp act anyway, the repeal was finally at hand. However, once the acts were repealed the Parliament added an addendum to the draft that pronounced the Crown's power to tax from that point onward was absolute. Therefore they could tax without the consent of the taxed or what became famously decried in the colonies as "taxation without representation."
As a result of the repeal of the hated stamp act imposed on the colonies because of the collection revolts led by the Colonists, the crown tried a different angle and implemented the Townshend duties which were import taxes on English goods shipped to the Americas. This plan was to replace the revenue that the stamp taxes were supposed to have supplied the crown and were taxes charged on paper, tea, dye, glass items and some few other things. There was some resistance to the idea in the English Commons though the act still passed in a 180 to 98 vote.
Famed English conservative, Edmund Burke, thought that the Colonists would rebel against this act as well and did they ever. In addition to the taxes the act also had a troop quartering provision attached to it. This provision was viewed by the colonists as if they were no longer being treated as proper Englishmen and caused New Yorkers, especially, to refuse to quarter and feed British troops.
As a result of this refusal, the crown suspended the New York legislature annulling any future acts by it causing outrage in that state. Once again American merchants began to organize systematic boycotts of English goods by smuggling goods from elsewhere to avoid paying the import taxes imposed by the Townshend duties causing the crown to loose the money that they expected to bring into their coffers from the colonies.
The Colonists felt that they had no recourse but to consent to the taxes and no legal ability to refuse to quarter British troops in their own homes, therefore their rights as Englishmen and their very liberty was being infringed upon. Again, violence erupted in the colonies over taxes. Tax men were run out of town, their duties houses burned and Riots appeared in almost every major commerce center. All the Townshend duties were repealed to quell the unrest except the duties on tea. This left the frustrated crown in the red yet again. With these successes the colonists began to develop the idea that their commerce was so important to England that they could control the situation from America. This began to embolden the Colonists to future disobedience.
On Dec. 16th 1773, a group of people disguised as Mohawk Indians erupted in violence in Boston harbor launching what would become known as the Boston Tea Party. The Sons of Liberty in Boston declared their distaste for the tea taxes in undeniable terms by dumping a load of tea being imported to the new world by the East India Company into the waters of Boston harbor in an action that the Massachusetts Tory, Daniel Leonard, called, "a more unaccountable phrenzy, and more disgraceful to the annals of America, than that of the witchcraft".(4)
This was not the only "tea party" either. Tea destruction was also undertaken at Greenwich, New Jersey; in November of 1774, seven tea chests were cast into the Cooper River at Charleston, S.C. and an entire ship and its cargo was burned near Annapolis, Maryland. Even New York had its trouble. At the same time that the Boston "Indians" were tossing loads of tea in the harbor, New York governor Tryon, who made a name for himself as the man who tamed the North Carolina Regulators, was confident that he would be able to shove the tea down the throats of the Sons of Liberty.(5) Yet, even as he tried to land his supply of tea ashore, as per his instructions from the crown, the citizens refused to allow him to do so. The only thing that stopped another tea party right there was the governor's desire not to cause an uprising on his watch. Still, in March of 1774, New York "Mohawks" reprised the Bostonians efforts and destroyed a tea shipment by throwing it into the harbor.
These "tea parties" precipitated the series of conflicts that would culminate in the American Revolution. A revolution as grounded in a distaste of taxes as in a desire for a new way of governing people based on the principles of God given freedoms and rights or the philosophical concepts of common sense. So, after years of bitter conflict and much expense in lives and treasure for both England and the American rebels, the crown admitted defeat and allowed the new world to go it's own way. It seemed that the Colonists had gotten their way and now they came upon their most annoying dilemma yet. What do they do about levying taxes themselves upon their own, new countrymen? After all, didn't they claim that the weight of unfair taxes is what sent them to the battlefields of the Revolution in the first place? But how could they operate their own government without the funds necessary to do so? A dilemma that took a long time in solving.
As the new American government struggled to organize, it became increasingly clear that the Articles of Confederation were not powerful enough to supplement a strong government. The founding Fathers began to write the new ground work for an American system of governing; the Constitution. But before this occurred they experienced a little tax revolt of their own. It was called Shays' Rebellion. Led by a Massachusetts man named Daniel Shays, a veteran of the war against England, the people in the state of Massachusetts became upset when the state had increased taxes to a high level to begin to pay the debts of the revolution. Armed only with pitchforks and farming implements, the mob, led by Mr. Shays, tried to seize a federal arsenal to break out more deadly weapons. A few volleys of the cannons at the arsenal cooled their ardor, however, and the "rebellion" was put down.
Section 8, a. of the Constitution says that the collection of taxes must be uniform throughout the United States (my emphasis added). The word uniform fully explains the desires of the founders that taxes be distributed fairly and equally upon the people of the country and is key to the Federal powers to tax. It is this section that has been misused since the beginning by that same Federal government, unfortunately.
After the Constitution was ratified, many of the states not entirely pleased with the document, it was during the presidency of George Washington that the country experienced yet another tax revolt. Alexander Hamilton, who had become the Secretary of the Treasury in Washington's cabinet, persuaded Congress to levy a tax on whiskey to help pay the war debt. Many farmers used the whiskey they distilled from gain as barter for products they could not get otherwise. The cash tax became onerous upon people who had little hard currency with which to pay such a tax but relied upon a barter system for their livelihoods. In a repeat of pre-revolutionary actions tax men were tarred and feathered and run out of town, all over again.
Washington raised up a militia army from four states and rode as far as Bedford, Pennsylvania to put down the Whiskey rebellion and restore order and the powers of the Federal government to collect taxes. Washington then pardoned the leaders of the rebellion, people who many wanted hanged as traitors, and ended the uprising. For a time the tax stayed on the books but, as Washington and then Adams left office and Thomas Jefferson ascended to the president's post he repealed the tax on whiskey. Once again, a tax revolt led to the abolition of the hated tax. Additionally, the leaders of the revolt were pardoned for their actions causing folks to wonder about just how serious the government took the levying of taxes.
One other small rebellion in Pennsylvania, called the Fries rebellion, took place during JohnAdams' term in office. When these taxes were levied upon the people it took the form of a direct tax on land, houses and slaves. However, the question became just how do you determine the tax on a home? The idea of assessing a tax on each home based on its number of windows and doors was then conceived.
However, the solution did not sit well with the German community in Pennsylvania. As the tax assessors began to fan out across the state they expectedly became subjected to the harassment that was becoming an American tradition of sorts. When the authorities arrested some of the people who attacked the tax men a citizen named John Fries organized a mob and freed them from the jail. Fries was arrested and charged with treason. No less than Alexander Hamilton was a chief advocate of hanging Mr. Fries.
Fries applied for a pardon from president Adams, who granted such quite against his cabinet members desires. Adams explained that his decision not to hang Fries for treason was that since no military act was organized against the Federal government by the rioters the crime of treason would be ill fitting to this case. He explained the rebellion was no more than" a riot, highhanded, aggravated, daring and dangerous indeed"(6), but not one that was an example of treason. All these tax revolts added to the demise of the Federalist party and strengthened the theory that all people needed to do to eliminate a tax was to revolt against it. A pattern was certainly emerging that would validate such a conclusion.
So, as the Founding Fathers faded from view and a newer generation of leaders began to replace them, a chief aspect of contention between what was becoming a very bifurcated country was the monetary policy and tariffs (taxes on goods). Leaders such as South Carolinian John C. Calhoun began to become convinced that the Northern manufacturing interests were increasingly putting themselves in the role of master over the more agrarian Southern states. The South became afraid that they were fading into a sort of colonial dependency upon the more industrialized North.(7)
As early as 1816, Virginian John Randolph recognized that the North was increasingly beginning to see that industrialization was the key to an enriched and progressive future whereas the South was basing it's grasp on power upon the concept that government was to be run by the landed classes. Randolph said that the "South... had accepted the Union on the assumption that the power of government would remain in the hands of the landed classes, who alone have that understanding of tradition, without which no society can be healthy."(8) An accepted theory was that the South's dependency upon the North would destroy the Union, eliminate State sovereignty and that higher tariffs would devastate Southern agricultural interests.
In 1827 John C. Calhoun was the tie breaking vote to stop a wool tariff bill That would deal a crushing blow to Southern agriculture. It was widely believed in the exultant South that Calhoun loyally dashed his chances for becoming president in his own right by voting down the Northern interests and supporting the South. While this may have been an overstatement, the enmity that Calhoun was building over such issues in the North lends some credence to the idea.Yet, Calhoun stayed on the 1828 Andrew Jackson ticket as a candidate for vice president, none-the-less. Since 1824, when congress passed duties on hemp, cotton bagging and cheap wool thousands of petitions flooded Washington from the Southern states. The South was ever more isolated from the North over the tariff issue.
In 1828, Calhoun published a report to the South Carolina legislature titled The Exposition and Protest which signaled a beginning to the nullification crisis of 1828. The root evil of Northern oppression of southern interests was, the report expounded, the tariff bill of 1828 oft times derisively called the tariff of abominations by southerners. Calhoun warned that the North would grow ever richer while the south labored unceasingly and without recompense to assure the outcome that the south would loose their foreign markets when other nations answered the stiff tariff imposed by the U.S. government with prohibitions of their own and that the south would never be allowed to transform itself into a manufacturing power by northern interests which would endeavor to keep the south out of the game "by superior capital and skill".(9)
At this time in American history the Supreme Court had yet to attain it's preeminence as the final arbiter of the constitutionality of Federal law, so to thwart the tariff Calhoun came upon the novel idea of nullification. In short, he theorized, a state could declare a federal law nullified with an act by its own legislature. This act, in turn, would force the rest of the states to call a constitutional convention to determine the constitutionality of the matter and amend the constitution if agreed. As Calhoun explained to his friend Duff Green, "The ground we have taken is that the tariff is unconstitutional and must be repealed, the rights of the south have been destroyed, and must be restored, that the union is in danger, and must be saved."(10)
Many saw the nullification crisis as a call to secession, but not necessarily Calhoun. He envisioned the call to nullification as a means to address an unfair tax, one that would force the rest of the country to also address the issue despite their desire to do so. The logic of the idea, however, does not hold up and one might assume Calhoun knew it. If enough states got together and could nullify any particular law then even strictly constitutional laws could be struck down. The fevered pitch that the South Carolina legislature and populace reached during the crisis is proof of just how much they were against the tariff, though. South Carolina's senator, Robert Hayne, said during the nullification convention held November 24th, 1832 that the state would "maintain its sovereignty, or be buried beneath its ruins."(11) This sentiment sat well with the many South Carolinians who attended the meeting that day and also saw modest agreement with much of the southern populace outside the state.
They had reached such a pitch that President Andrew Jackson warned he would call out the militia to put down this South Carolinian rebellion created by his own vice president. Consequently, on December 24th he ordered General Winfield Scott to place Federal troops around Fort Sumter to guard the installation from South Carolina's hot headed state militia troops. Calhoun had formally broken with his president and was soon to resign his position as vice president.
The "Force Bill", a proclamation by congress in support of Jackson's actions against South Carolina, was passed with only one vote against because the southern delegation organized a walkout of congress to demonstrate that there were those virulently opposed to it not being properly represented by their absence at session. That lone nay vote was cast by Virginia senator and future president John Tyler who said "... I will not join in denunciations which have been so loudly thundered against her (South Carolina), nor will I deny that she has much cause of complaint."(12)
Tyler became a member of the cadre who immediately organized a compromise to forestall civil war. That compromise, called the Compromise Tariff Act of 1833, entailed a scaling back of the tariff and a plan to reduce future tariff charges to a level of no more than 20% on any item. This compromise was hammered out by men such as Henry Clay and John Calhoun, who had since resigned as vice president to take a Senate seat from South Carolina when senator Haynes resigned for that purpose. Once again, the south was able to beat down the tax levied by Northern interests lending even more credence to their stance on the acceptability of their practice of making a tax null and void.
Furthermore, the idea of secession over such disagreements was further codified by this crisis. Along with similar statements, John Tyler said in his speech against the "Force Bill"on the floor of congress, "The government was created by the States, is amenable by the States, is preserved by the States, and may be destroyed by the States."(13) Along with the nullification crisis things were heating up for secession.
Roughly at the same time that the south was raising the roof about tariff issues led by Calhoun other populist Jacksonian Democrats were staging a revolt of their own against Federal control of monetary policy with resistance to the Second Bank of the United States. An institution which president Jackson wished to veto a re chartering.
With its 20 year charter beginning in 1816 the Second Bank of the United States was charged to act as the exclusive fiscal agent for the Federal government. This bank handled all transactions, payments and receipts for the national government in Washington and, like other banks of its time, had the right to issue bank notes and hold deposits. Additionally, the 2nd BUS was expected to act as a controlling agent to restore and maintain credit both public and private among other banks throughout the states.(14)
Such Federal interference in state monetary issues angered many state banks who were forced by congressional coercion to keep more specie on hand than they normally might to assure deposits. Also, since this bank was larger than other such institutions controlling some 20%(15) of national bank lending to many it smacked of Federal meddling and unwarranted Federal power once again angering those who disliked the Federal government controlling national monetary policy.
Even previous to the Jacksonian populist movement, which was morally outraged by the 2nd BUS, several states rebelled against the institution. As early as 1816 the states of Illinois and Indiana amended their state constitutions to prohibit the 2nd BUS from establishing branches within their borders. Also, the states of North Carolina, Georgia and Maryland imposed heavy taxes and fees upon the bank to discourage its operations there forcing the Monroe administration to take the case to the Supreme Court. In the 1819 case, McCulloch vs. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the states had no constitutional right to hamper the duties and actions of the 2nd BUS ominously saying in his majority opinion, "the power to tax involves the power to destroy".(16)
Never the less, Ohio, ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling, imposed a $50,000 per year tax on the 2nd BUS that the bank refused to pay. This wasn't the only state to resist Federal monetary policy in the form of the 2nd BUS, either. In the years to come Connecticut, Kentucky, South Carolina and several other states copied Ohio's resistance and imposed stiff fees and taxes on the bank causing heavy political pressure to come to bear against its patrician Eastern supporters which culminated in the Jackson stance against the institution.
Curiously, it was another soon to be vice president, George Mifflin Dallas (later to become vice president under James K. Polk), who was one of Jackson's best allies in eliminating national support for the 2nd BUS. Ostensibly thought a supporter of the bank, Dallas, a former solicitor for the 2nd BUS from Pennsylvania turned ardent- though perhaps a sudden - Jacksonian Democrat, was secretly against it and anonymously helped write a well received series of letters and Newspaper articles against its re charter in 1829. In one article he questioned "...both the constitutionality and the expediency of the law creating this bank" and he stated that the bank had failed to create a steady and uniformly sound national currency or fiscal policy.(17)
Fraud was commonplace as bank operatives routinely bribed state officials to grant the charter to operate and as a result the quality and sound nature of bank notes from the 2nd BUS varied wildly from state to state and local to local. In 1828, for instance 17 banks in Mississippi circulated notes worth up to some 6 million dollars based upon a much smaller deposit of only $303,00 in specie to back it.(18)
Finally, Jackson was able to quash the re charter of the bank. The states were able to realign Federal fiscal policy for the benefit of the states and against the benefit of the Federal government by rebelling against the policy despite the written laws regarding it, assuring the states to assume fiscal autonomy from the Federal government, once again. Not until the Civil War did Federal intervention in the money supply again occur and not until 1913 did the Federal government finally create a central banking agency.
Then came the ideology that threatened to upset this previously accepted separation of Money and state when the Whig party came to the national forefront. This new party grabbed power during a depression that lasted from 1837 to 1843 which sent the Jacksonian Democrats into a tailspin leaving a vacuum of power. The Whigs based their claim to ascendancy on a platform of internal improvements called the American System, the brain child of Henry Clay of Kentucky, to be paid for by higher tariffs. Abraham Lincoln of Illinois would become a great proponent and member of this nascent party.
The Whig party won the presidency by offering General William Henry Harrison as their candidate who campaigned by saying as little about what he stood for as he possibly could. Even his vice presidential candidate, John Tyler of Virginia, was told to stay away from too much revelation on his stances while on the campaign trail. Tyler, who was far more a democrat than a Whig but sporting the Whig label as a political expediency as well as to spite several prominent Virginia Democrats, begrudgingly complied. (19)
With Harrison as president the Whigs stood their chance to enact the higher tariffs they were advocating. However, Harrison died only a month into his term and Tyler firmly took control of the office. This surprised many in government who were not at all sure that the vice president should or even could take over for a missing president because the process of presidential succession was not clearly defined at the time. And John Tyler was not about to let Henry Clay run the country from the Senate.
So, the next time a raise in the tariff was introduced it was in 1841 and considered by that same Virginia senator turned accidental President, John Tyler. At the time the coffers of the government were at a deficit and, though against a high tariff, Tyler had taken a stand even during the 1833 crisis that a tariff might be raised to avert a financial emergency. In 1841 the United States treasury had arrived at such an emergency as the government was not only facing a deficit of over 11 million dollars but was being forced to borrow to make up the difference.
Tyler proposed a combination of ideas as opposed to a straight tariff hike. He proposed the sales of public lands along and a raise in the tariff of some items, either at a current low rate or items on the free list, but only to a maximum of 20 percent as agreed upon by the 1833 compromise which he felt he could not supersede. Congress did not arrive at a consensus and by 1842 Tyler suggested a temporary raise in duties to meet the looming shortfalls.
Finally, congress passed a bill idea that would raise tariffs over the 20 percent level permanently which Tyler vetoed. It was not, however, passed over the presidential veto and the southern president was able to stay a tariff that would raise rates higher than the 1833 compromise permanently though rates were raised to those of 1832 temporarily angering low tariff advocates like Calhoun. The final bill was decried as " the most flagrantly protective, fraudulent, perfidious, oppressive, unjust, and unconstitutional tariff bill that has ever passed."(20)
As the Tyler presidency wound down the Democrats rose to the occasion, banded together, forgot and forgave the specific differences that separated them so that they could win back the highest office in the land. Though he thwarted Whig economic plans and despite some ideas floated by Tyler supporters that the Democrats should support him all were sure they could not nominate Tyler to win election in his own right. And certainly the Whig party would not nominate him after his contentious relationship with his own party. The Democrats settled upon James K. Polk as their candidate and beat the smaller, fractious Whig party for the presidency in 1844.
Upon winning the office the Polk administration was successful in passing the Walker Tariff which slashed the tariff to the minimum levels to assure that Federal revenue could sustain government. Some Democrats breathed a sigh of relief however, some moderate Democrats were not happy at the extremity of the Walker Tariff because they did favor some protective tariffs. In the case of the Walker Tariff, the anti-tax forces went too far.
But the Whigs were not done yet. When it became clear 3 years later that the rather unpopular Polk would not be re elected the Whigs put forth Zachary Taylor, another rather closed mouthed former General who became famous in the war with Mexico, as their candidate. By this time the Whig party had firmly settled upon its platform that higher tariffs pumped back into the states could be used to make internal improvements (railroads, canals, a Federal banking system, etc.) and set about to make the Federal government a stronger influence on national life. At this time the Whigs also made abolition of slavery a major platform plank which opened up a new area of disagreement between the national parties whereas before it was only a sectional argument.
The Democrat party was practically finished in the north and in the south it was fractured beyond repair. However, the Whig party was built on too few similarities and too many factions and did not survive the presidency of Taylor and vice president Millard Fillmore who took over when Taylor died in office in 1850. The leavings of the Whig party were gathered up into the emerging Republican party and their principles of high tariffs, bigger Federal government and slavery abolition became a major influence on that party.
The Democrats won the succeeding presidencies until 1860 and that, coupled with a relative economic boom between the late 1840's and 1857, favored their policy of lower tariffs. Additionally, the issue of slavery began more and more to capture the floor of national debate leaving tariffs of lesser interest in the public discourse.
But in 1857 an economic downturn occurred with the results that the Republican party quickly moved to support higher tariffs to further their policies of greater Federal expansion causing Democrats to point the finger of state's rights at their opponents adding one more anti-northern argument to their arsenal.
Conclusion
From the American revolution right up to the Civil War, a revolt against Federal control of taxes and monetary policy was the norm. The states jealously guarded their autonomy and economic growth was widely assumed to be within the realm of the states in competition with each other as opposed to a policy of national economic continuity. The states felt it quite acceptable to effectively nullify Federal economic policy that, if denied, would form one more reason which might make necessary adopting the assumed right of secession from the Union. And at the time, the Supreme Court was also not necessarily the same powerful force to curb state policy that it has since evolved in to.
The parties began more and more to identify with sectional interests further splitting the country on ideological fault lines. As time went on from the revolution, the south increasingly began to identify low tariffs as vital to their interests and northern interests began to move in the opposite direction.
We can easily identify tariffs, taxes and the perceived adverse role of the Federal government in national economic policy coupled with a long tradition of successfully nullifying such laws through protestation forming a large part of why the south finally seceded from the union upon the election of Lincoln. Lincoln would naturally seem to be the antithesis of a candidate who would support southern policy. He was well known as a man who was a high tariff supporter, a former Whig and a supporter of the Republican "big government" platform, as well as a man belonging to a party that had made abolition of slavery a chief policy aim.
This is not to say, of course, that slavery was of lesser import. The abolition hysteria that was raised throughout the country in the 10 years before the outbreak of hostilities was certainly a monumental cause, but economic policy was also a major factor right along side that of slavery as the nation hurdled headlong toward Civil War .It is also a cause far too often ignored by historians.
Footnotes:
1.-Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith
2.-Those Dirty Rotten Taxes, by Charles Adams, 1998
3.-Taxation No Tyranny, treatise by Samuel Johnson, 1765
4.-Origins of the American Revolution, by John C. Miller, Atlantic Monthly Press, 1943
5.-Pennsylvania Gazette, November 17, 1773
6.-Quote from the Adams Papers May 20th , 1800, Mass. Historical Society
7.-John C. Calhoun, American Portrait, by Margaret L. Coit, Houghton Mifflin, 1961
8.-The American Heresy, by Christopher Hollis, 1927
9.-The South Carolina Exposition, by John C. Calhoun, 1828
10.-Niles Weekly Register, vol.XXXV, Sept. 20, 1828
11.-Proceedings of the state nullification convention, manuscript, South Carolina Historical commission
12.- egister of Debates, 22nd Congress, 371
13.-ibid, 360-377
14.-Journal of Economic History- article:The Second Bank of the United States: An Instrument For Inter-regional Monetary Union by A. Frass, 1974
15.-Jacksonian America: Society, Personality And Politics, by E. Pressen, 1985
16.-The Sovereign States: Notes of a Citizen of Virginia, by James J. Kilpatrick, 1957
17.-The American Sentinel Newspaper (Penn.)- Anonymous article traced to G.M.Dallas, Dec. 12th, 1829
18.-Jacksonian America: Society, Personality And Politics, by E. Pressen, 1985
19.-John Tyler, Champion of the Old South, by Oliver Perry Chitwood, 1939
20.-as quoted by Niles Register, LXIII, 140
