representative from Tennessee, submitted to Jackson a plan for a national bank, under which the capital of forty millions was to be divided among the states according to population, the state directors to be chosen by the representatives of the state in Congress.1

Jackson himself probably revealed his own attitude in the matter when he wrote to Biddle, in November, 1829, that he did not think that Congress had the right to charter a bank outside the District of Columbia, that he did not dislike Biddle's bank more than other banks, but that ever since he had read the history of the South Sea Bubble he had been afraid of banks." In other words, it was opposition to banks as such, and not to this particular bank, that moved him. His ignorance of financial matters in general, together with his belief in "hard" money, may also have influenced him. That his opposition to banks was not inflexible, however, is shown by his request of his friend James A. Hamilton, in December, to draw up plans for two banks, one as a branch of the treasury department, the other for general banking purposes."

The influence of the Portsmouth branch controversy on Jackson's opinions has also, perhaps, been overrated. At the instigation of Senator Woodbury, of New Hampshire, Ingham wrote to Biddle

Jackson MSS.

Quoted by Catterall, Second Bank, 184. • Hamilton, Reminiscences, 151, 152.

complaining of the course of Jeremiah Mason, president of the Portsmouth branch. Mason, a close friend of Webster, to whom he owed his appointment, had aroused opposition among New Hampshire merchants by his methods in reorganizing the business of the branch, and it was now intimated that the bank had used its influence against Jackson in the late election. Biddle had no difficulty in disproving the charges, and, in a vigorous correspondence with Ingham, repudiated what he assumed to be the latter's claim to a right on the part of the government to interfere with the choice of officers of the bank or with the conduct of its business. Biddle did not quote Ingham correctly, but the action of the secretary of war in ordering the removal of the pension funds from Portsmouth to Concord, together with complaints against the branches at New Orleans and elsewhere, convinced him that the administration desired a voice in the management of the bank. Jackson wrote to Biddle in November that the controversy was due to the "foolishness" of Isaac Hill-who, unknown to Ingham, had taken part in the affair-and that he should take occasion in his message to declare publicly his appreciation of "the services rendered by the Bank at the last payment of the national debt." " Though the charges of political favoritism were not sustained, it was, of course, a fact that the bank

1 House Reports, 22 Cong., 1 Sess., No. 160.
Catterall, Second Bank, 179.

was before the cabinet at the time. The whole affair was apparently the result of the machinations of Lewis, Forsyth, and Hamilton, and designed to shift the whole burden of opposition in 1818 to Calhoun, thereby discrediting Calhoun in the eyes of Jackson and defeating his aspirations for the presidency.

Jackson, his suspicions now become a certainty, demanded an explanation from Calhoun. Calhoun could hardly have been unprepared, for he had corresponded with Monroe about the Florida matter since December, 1827, and on March 7, 1828, wrote to Monroe that he had reason to think that false statements had been made to Jackson about the cabinet discussion of 1818.1 His reply to Jackson's inquiry was a long and not quite satisfactory defence of his conduct, together with a criticism of Crawford for revealing a cabinet secret. Jackson, in response, disclaimed any intention of calling in question Calhoun's character or motives, but closed the controversy, so far as he was concerned, by stating that, in view of the revelations of Crawford's letter, "no further communication with you on this subject is necessary." The breach was final, Calhoun declining to renew friendly relations unless Jackson would retract, although declaring that

every opening was made" for him to do so. He kept up an active correspondence, however, with Monroe and others, showed the letters to his friends,

Calhoun, Corresp. (Jameson's ed.), passim., esp. 260.

and in February, 1838, published them in his own defence.1

In his second annual message, December, 1830, Jackson returned to the attack on the bank, this time with a more specific statement of his own views. A Bank of the United States might, he suggests, be organized "as a branch of the treasury department, based on the public and individual deposits, without power to make loans or purchase property, which shall remit the funds of the Government, and the expense of which may be paid, if thought advisable, by allowing its officers to sell bills of exchange to private individuals at a moderate premium." Such a bank would have "no means to operate on the hopes, fears, or interests of large masses of the community," while the state banks, though having the sole right of issuing the "local paper currency," would be compelled to redeem their notes in specie by the refusal otherwise of the Bank of the United States to receive such notes on deposit or for exchange.

2

Congress paid even less attention to this message than to that of a year before. A motion to refer the part of the message relating to the bank to a select committee of the House, instead of to the committee of ways and means, was lost by a decisive vote, as was Benton's motion in the Senate for leave to bring in a motion against the renewal

1 Calhoun, Corresp. (Jameson's ed.), 280; Works, VI., 358-445Richardson, Messages and Papers, II., 529.

of the charter. Newspapers favorable to the bank were bitter in their attacks on the president and Van Buren, while the bank published "floods of articles" in its own behalf. The controversy began to show its political aspect, however. The legislature of New York passed a resolution against a recharter, to which the legislature of Pennsylvania responded with a resolution in favor of the bank. With a presidential election not far distant, the entanglement of the bank issue with other political questions was of the highest moment, especially in view of the support which Jackson had received from both Pennsylvania and New York in 1828.

While Congress was sitting in 1831, the cabinet was breaking up. Rumors regarding the character of Mrs. Eaton, wife of the secretary of war, led to a refusal on the part of the ladies of the cabinet to call upon her, although the existence of the scandal was for some time unknown to the public. Jackson, notably chivalrous in his attitude towards women, and remembering the attacks on his own wife, championed the cause of Mrs. Eaton, collected a mass of evidence to prove her innocence, and did everything in his power to obtain for her social recognition; but without avail. For Van Buren and Calhoun the consequences were indirectly important. Van Buren, being a widower, was free to extend to Mrs. Eaton the usual social courtesies, with the result of rising rapidly in Jackson's esteem; 1 Catterall, Second Bank, 205.