affirms that said rights are only the chance to have good things, if one can get them. In spite of their dogma of the equality of all men, which would make a prudent man no better than a careless one, and a man with capital no better than one without capital, the equal rights men had foreseen the emergency, and had provided themselves with capital in the shape of candles and loco-foco matches. They thus established their right to light, against nature and against their enemies. They duly adopted their platform, nominated a ticket, and adjourned. The regular leaders met elsewhere, nominated the ticket which they had previously prepared, and dispensed, for that occasion, with the ornamental and ceremonious formality of a primary meeting to nominate it.

On the next day the "Courier and Enquirer dubbed the equal rights party the loco-focos, and the name clung to them.1 Hammond quotes a correspondent who correctly declared that "the workingmen's party and the equal rights party have operated as causes, producing effects that will shape the course of the two great parties of the United States, and consequently the destinies of this great republic." The faction, at least in its better elements, evidently had convictions and a programme. It continued to grow. The "Evening Post" became its organ. That paper quarrelled with the administration on Kendall's order about the mails, and was thereupon formally read out of 1 49 Niles, 162. 2 2 Hammond, 503.

the party by the "Globe." 1 The loco-focos ceased to be a revolting faction. They acquired belligerent rights. The faction, however, in its internal economy ran the course of all factions. It went to extremes, and then began to split up. In January, 1836, it declared its independence of the democratic-republican party. This alienated all who hated the party tyranny, but who wanted reform in the party. The faction declared itself opposed to all acts of incorporation, and held that all such acts were repealable. It declared that representative institutions were only a practical convenience, and that Legislatures could not create vested rights.2 Then it went on to adopt a ́ platform of " equality of position, as well as of

rights."

In October, 1836, Tammany made overtures to the equal rights men for a reunion, in preparation for the presidential election. Some of the loco-focos wanted to unite; others refused. The latter were the men of conviction; the former were the traders. The former called the latter "rumps;" the latter called the former "buffaloes."3 Only one stage now remained to complete the old and oft-repeated drama of faction. A man named Slamm, a blatant ignoramus, who, to his great joy, had been arrested by order of the Assembly of New York for contempt and breach of privilege, and who had profited to the utmost by this incident to make a long "argument" against the "privilege" of an Ameri2 Byrdsall, 41. 8 Byrdsall, 178.

1 49 Niles, 78.

can Legislature, and to pose as a martyr to equal rights, secured his own election to the position of secretary of the equal rights party. He then secured a vote that no constitutional election could be held unless called by the secretary. He never would call one. There were those who thought that he sold out the party.

Thus the faction perished ignominiously, but it was not without reason that its name passed, a little later, to the whole Jackson - Van Buren party; i. e., to the radical anti-paper currency, not simply anti-United States Bank, wing of the national democratic party. The equal rights men maintained impracticable doctrines of civil authority, and fantastic dogmas about equality, but when these were stripped away there remained in their platform sound doctrines and imperishable ideas. They first put the democratic party on the platform which for five or six years it had been trying to find. When it did find that platform it was most true to itself, and it contributed most to the welfare of the country. The democratic party was for a generation, by tradition, a party of hard money, free trade, the non-interference theory of government, and no special legislation. If that tradition be traced up to its source, it will lead back, not to the Jackson party of 1829, but to the loco-focos of 1835.

CHAPTER XIII

THE ELECTION OF 1836. -END OF JACKSON'S

CAREER

THE attempt was made in 1834 to unite and organize the whole opposition to Jackson. Niles first mentions the party name "whig" in April, 1834.1 He says that it had come into use in Connecticut and New York. It was adopted with antagonistic reference to the high prerogative and (as alleged) tory doctrines of Jackson. The antimasons and national republicans ultimately merged in the new whig party, but time was required to bring about that result. In 1834 it was impossible. The anti-masons insisted on acting independently. Their candidate for President then was Francis Granger.2 Clay would not run in 1836, because he could not unite the opposition. He was disgusted with public life, and desired to retire.3

The administration party, on the other hand, was perfectly organized. The corps of federal office-holders had been drilled by the "Globe " into thorough discipline and perfect accord of energy and will. Each officer was held to " revere 8 9 Adams, 170.

1 46 Niles, 101.

2 50 Niles, 234.

the chief," and to act in obedience to the indications of his will which came through the "Globe." They did so. There was no faltering. There was only zealous obedience. It caused some bewilderment to remember that this was the party which had denounced Adams for using the federal officers to electioneer. Lewis had been known to interfere directly in elections, and Blair had done the same in his private capacity.1 The party had been wonderfully held together. In 1830 there were only four anti-Jackson Legislatures in the Union, namely, in Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Delaware. In the six years from 1830 to 1835, both inclusive, twenty-seven States held 162 sessions of their Legislatures. Of these, 118 had Jackson majorities, 40 anti-Jackson, and 4 Calhoun.2 There was some talk of a third term for Jackson, but it never grew strong. The precedents were cited against it. Jackson's bad health and Van Buren's aspirations were perhaps stronger objections. Adams says that Jackson had "wearied out the sordid subserviency of his supporters." 3 That is not at all improbable.

The democratic convention was held at Baltimore, May 20, 1835. Jackson had written to Tennessee, recommending that a convention should be held of "candidates fresh from the people." There were not wanting those who called this convention a caucus, and said that it was the old congressional monster in a new mask. Tennessee did not send 8 9 Adams, 312.

1 40 Niles, 299.

2 63 Niles, 308.