the ungoverned passions displayed by the removal of deposits resulted in nothing, and could have resulted in nothing of advantage to any theory of the Bank’s management; and it would be difficult to say who were most to blame for the foolish and undignified crimination and recrimination which followed,—­the President, or the hostile Senate.  It was, at any rate, a fight in which Jackson won, but which, from the animosities it kindled, brought down his gray hairs in sorrow to the grave.  It gave him a doubtful place in the history of the nation.

If Jackson’s hostility to the United States Bank was inexpedient and violent, and resulted in financial disasters, his vigorous efforts to put down Nullification were patriotic, and called forth the approval and gratitude of the nation.  This was a real service of immense value, and it is probable that no other public man then on the stage could have done this important work so well.  Like all Jackson’s measures, it was summary and decided.

Nullification grew out of the tariffs which Congress had imposed.  The South wanted no protective duties at all; indeed, it wanted absolute free trade, so that planters might obtain the articles which they needed at the smallest possible cost, and sell as much cotton and tobacco as they could with the least delay and embarrassment.  Professor Sumner argues that Southern industries either supported the Federal government, or paid tribute to the Northern manufacturers, and that consequently the grievances of the Southern States were natural and just,—­that their interests were sacrificed to national interests, as the New England interests had been sacrificed to the national interests at the time of the Embargo.  Undoubtedly, the South had cause of complaint, and we cannot wonder at its irritation and opposition to the taxes imposed on all for the protection of American manufactures.  On the other hand, it was a grave question whether the interests of the nation at large should be sacrificed to build up the interests of the South,—­to say nothing of the great moral issues which underlie all material questions.  In other words, in matters of national importance, which should rule?  Should the majority yield to the minority, or the minority to the majority?  In accordance with the democratic principles on which this government is founded, there is only one reply to the question:  The majority must rule.  This is the basal stone of all constitutional government, whose disruption would produce revolution and anarchy.  It is a bitter and humiliating necessity which compels the intellect, the wealth, the rank, and the fashion of England to yield to the small majority in the House of Commons, in the matter of Irish Home Rule, but an Irishman’s vote is as good as that of the son of an English peer.  The rule of the majority is the price of political liberty, for which enlightened nations are willing to pay.