Mr. Webster was anxious that the party of opposition to General Jackson, which then passed by the name of National Republicans, should be in some way strengthened, solidified, and placed on a broad platform of distinct principles.  He saw with great regret the ruin which was threatened by the anti-masonic schism, and it would seem that he was not indisposed to take advantage of this to stop the nomination of Mr. Clay, who was peculiarly objectionable to the opponents of masonry.  He earnestly desired the nomination himself, but even his own friends in the party told him that this was out of the question, and he acquiesced in their decision.  Mr. Clay’s personal popularity, moreover, among the National Republicans was, in truth, invincible, and he was unanimously nominated by the convention at Baltimore.  The action of the anti-masonic element in the country doomed Clay to defeat, which he was likely enough to encounter in any event; but the consolidation of the party so ardently desired by Mr. Webster was brought about by acts of the administration, which completely overcame any intestine divisions among its opponents.

The session of 1831-1832, when the country was preparing for the coming presidential election, marks the beginning of the fierce struggle with Andrew Jackson which was to give birth to a new and powerful organization known in our history as the Whig party, and destined, after years of conflict, to bring overwhelming defeat to the “Jacksonian democracy.”  There is no occasion here to enter into a history of the famous bank controversy.  Established in 1816, the bank of the United States, after a period of difficulties, had become a powerful and valuable financial organization.  In 1832 it applied for a continuance of its charter, which then had three years still to run.  Mr. Webster did not enter into the personal contest which had already begun, but in a speech of great ability advocated a renewal of the charter, showing, as he always did on such themes, a knowledge and a grasp of the principles and intricacies of public finance unequalled in our history except by Hamilton.  In a second speech he made a most effective and powerful argument against a proposition to give the States authority to tax the bank, defending the doctrines laid down by Chief Justice Marshall in McCullough vs.  Maryland, and denying the power of Congress to give the States the right of such taxation, because by so doing they violated the Constitution.  The amendment was defeated, and the bill for the continuance of the charter passed both Houses by large majorities.

Jackson returned the bill with a veto.  He had the audacity to rest his veto upon the ground that the bill was unconstitutional, and that it was the duty of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of every measure without feeling in the least bound by the opinion of Congress or of the Supreme Court.  His ignorance was so crass that he failed to perceive the distinction between a new bill and one to continue