Page:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1889, volume 6).djvu/220

194 by the British. This military service lasted for a month, during which Mr. Tyler's company was not called into action. He was re-elected to the legislature annually, until in November, 1816, he was chosen to fill a vacancy in the U. S. house of representatives. In the regular election to the next congress, out of 200 votes given in his native county, he received all but one. As a member of congress he soon made himself con- spicuous as a strict constructionist. When Mr. Calhoun introduced his bill in favor of internal improvements, Mr. Tyler voted against it. He op- posed the bill for changing the per diem allowance of members of congress to an annual salary of $1,500. He opposed, as premature, Mr. Clay's pro- posal to add to the general appropriation bill a provision for $18,000 for a minister to the prov- inces of the La Plata, thus committing the United States to a recognition of the independence of those revolted provinces. He also voted against the proposal for a national bankrupt act. He con- demned, as arbitrary and insubordinate, the course of Gen. Jackson in Florida, and contributed an able speech to the long debate over the question as to censuring that gallant commander. He was a member of a committee for inquiring into the af- fairs of the national bank, and his most elaborate speech was in favor of Mr. Trimble's motion to is- sue a scire facias against that institution. On all these points Mr. Tyler's course seems to have pleased his constituents ; in the spring election of 1819 he did not consider it necessary to issue the usual circular address, or in any way to engage in a personal canvass. He simply distributed copies of his speech against the bank, and was re-elected to congress unanimously.

The most important question that came before the 16th congress related to the admission of Missouri to the Union. In the debates over this question Mr. Tyler took ground against the imposition of any restrictions upon the exten- sion of slavery. At the same time he declared himself on principle opposed to the perpetuation of slavery, and he sought to reconcile these posi- tions by the argument that in diffusing the slave population over a wide area the evils of the in- stitution would be diminished and the prospects of ultimate emancipation increased. " Slavery," said he, " has been represented on all hands as a dark cloud, and the candor of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Whitman] drove him to the admission that it would be well to disperse this cloud. In this sentiment I entirely concur with him. How can you otherwise disarm it? Will you suffer it to increase in its darkness over one particular portion of this land till its horrors shall burst upon it? Will you permit the lightnings of its wrath to break upon the south, when by the interposition of a wise system of legislation you may reduce it to a summer's cloud? New York and Pennsylvania, he argued, had been able to emancipate their slaves only by reducing their num- ber by exportation. Dispersion, moreover, would be likely to ameliorate the condition of the black man, for by making his labor scarce in each particu- lar locality it would increase the demand for it, and would thus make it the interest of the master to deal fairly and generously with his slaves. To the objection that the increase of the slave population would fully keep up with its territorial expansion, he replied by denying that such would be the case. His next argument was that if an old state, such as Virginia, could have slaves, while a new state, such as Missouri, was to be prevented by Federal authority from having them, then the old and new states would at once be placed upon a different footing, which was contrary to the spirit of the constitution. If congress could thus impose one restriction upon a state, where was the exercise of such a power to end ? Once grant such a power, and what was to prevent a slave-holding majority in congress from forcing slavery upon some territory where it was not wanted? Mr. Tyler pursued the argument so far as to deny " that congress, under its constitutional authority to establish rules and regulations for the terri- tories, had any control whatever over slavery in the territorial domain." (See life, by Lyon G. Tyler, vol. i., p. 319.) Mr. Tyler was unquestion- ably foremost among the members of congress in occupying this position. When the Missouri compromise bill was adopted by a vote of 134 to 42. all but five of the nays were from the south, and from Virginia alone there were seventeen, of which Mr. Tyler's vote was one. The Richmond " Enquirer " of 7 March, 1820, in denouncing the compromise, observed, in language of prophetic interest, that the southern and western representa- tives now " owe it to themselves to keep their eyes firmly fixed on Texas ; if we are cooped up on the north, we must have elbow-room to the west." Mr. Tyler's further action in this congress re- lated chiefly to the question of a protective tariff, of which he was an unflinching opponent. In 1821, finding his health seriously impaired, he declined a re-election, and returned to private life. His retirement, however, was of short duration, for in 1823 he was again elected to the Virginia legisla- ture. Here, as a friend to the candidacy of Will- iam H. Crawford for the presidency, he disap- proved the attacks upon the congressional caucus begun by the legislature of Tennessee in the in- terests of Andrew Jackson. The next year he was nominated to fill the vacancy in the United States senate created by the death of John Taylor ; but Littleton W. Tazewell was elected over him. He opposed the attempt to remove William and Mary college to Richmond, and was afterward made suc- cessively rector and chancellor of the college, which Erospered signally under his management. In •ecember, 1825, he was chosen by the legislature to the governorship of Virginia, and in the follow- ing year he was re-elected by a unanimous vote. A new division of parties was now beginning to show itself in national politics. The administra- tion of John Quincy Adams had pronounced itself in favor of what was then, without much regard to history, described as the " American system " of government banking, high tariffs, and internal improvements. Those persons who were inclined to a lpose construction of the constitution were soon drawn to the side of the administration, while the strict constructionists were gradually united in opposition. Many members of Crawford's party, under the lead of John Randolph, became thus united with the Jacksonians, while others, of whom Mr. Tyler was one of the most distinguished, maintained a certain independence in opposition. It is to be set down to Mr. Tyler's credit that he never attached any importance to the malicious story, believed by so many Jacksonians, of a cor- rupt bargain between Adams and Clay. (See Adams, John Q., Clay, Henry, and Jackson, An- drew.) Soon after the meeting of the Virginia legislature, in December, 1826, the friends of Clay and Adams combined with the members of the opposite party who were dissatisfied with Randolph, and thus Mr. Tyler was elected to the U. S. senate by a majority of 115 votes to 110. Some indiscreet friends of Jackson now