Democracy's Lawyer: Felix Grundy of the Old Southwest

21. Reelection

21 Reelection A strong hold he has upon the good opinions of the great body of the ­people.    —William Carroll rundy’s reelection bid for the Senate became inextricably caught up in the continuing clash of competing factions in Tennessee. His ultimate success in 1833 came only after a deadlocked legislature in 1832 and intensive management by Grundy and his allies. The victory would cement the leadership of the state Democratic Party by Grundy and James K. Polk until Grundy ’s death in 1840. Even though political factionalism was increasing among nominal Jacksonians in Tennessee, key Jackson backers still sought electoral unity in Tennessee . Grundy’s term in the Senate did not end until 1832, and some Jackson advisers hoped that he would not be challenged. John Coffee, who so vigorously opposed Grundy for Congress in 1811, wrote Jackson in July 1831 that he was pleased that Carroll would not oppose Grundy and create undesirable division and thought that Grundy would continue to do well. The strife Coffee feared, however, came to pass. Ephraim Foster (1794–1854), a wartime aide to Jackson and son of Grundy’s old friend Robert C. Foster, saw a political opportunity and challenged Grundy. Foster, financially Nashville’s most successful lawyer, largely represented commercial interests and acted with the backing of the Erwin -Carroll faction.1 A lengthy article by “CJF,” presumably Foster, in the Nashville Republican and State Gazette on October 6, 1831, opened the campaign. Comparing Grundy ’s speech on the Foot Resolution with the writings of Calhoun and Hayne, “CJF” maintained that Grundy favored nullification. A lengthy rebuttal signed “Justice,” presumably Grundy, appeared in the same paper two days later. After expressing surprise that opinions previously applauded should now be considered dangerous, the writer asked, “Is Mr. Grundy’s seat in the Senate wanted 208 G Reelection � 209 for another?” He then claimed that all parties admitted some ill-defined right to resist the unauthorized oppression of the general government but said that Webster and Hayne offered polar solutions, one viewing the Supreme Court as the final arbiter on all questions respecting the power of the general and state governments, the other looking to the state legislatures. “Justice” aligned himself with Jackson’s fear of consolidation of federal power and tried to stake out a middle position between Webster’s and Hayne’s, calling for a special state convention . The compromise position, which Grundy had set forth in his speech on Foot’s resolution on March 1, 1830, would avoid “hastily plunging the country into civil war, with all its dire calamities.” “Justice” concluded: “If his opinion be wrong, it is fortunate for him that his enemies can show only one error and that too a speculative opinion delivered in a speech in an extended and excursive debate. If he has erred, he has with Jefferson and others whose political errors have heretofore been considered as allied to public virtue.” For approximately five weeks, until Grundy left for Washington, the Nashville Republican and State Gazette published exchanges between “CJF” and “Justice.” On October 13 “CJF” forcefully set forth his view, based on the meaning of the words used: “If Mr. Calhoun is a nullifier, you are one—if Mr. Hayne is a nullifier, you are one—if you are a nullifier, they are nullifiers—so you are all nullifiers together or you are not nullifiers.” Although this author at times overplayed his position, denying, for example, that Grundy could find countenance for his doctrines in the opinions of Jefferson or Madison or in the Kentucky or the Virginia Resolution, he had the better of the argument. Under the circumstances, “CJF”’s success is not surprising and suggests that Grundy would have been better advised to offer no defense, to be above the fray. The exchange attracted notice as well as speculation. William Donelson wrote to Grundy’s ally Andrew Donelson on October 23, 1831, that the attack on Grundy had occurred just as the legislation was sitting and a short time after the return of Judge Overton. “There is some mistery in it,” he said. One “mistery ” was whether the Blount-Overton group would run John Eaton for the Senate, accentuating the growing divide among Jacksonians. Eaton, by now out of Jackson’s cabinet, arrived in Middle Tennessee during the legislative session. Eaton’s defense of his conduct had been widely publicized and, according to Governor Carroll, “produced a strong sympathy in behalf of Major Eaton. . . . Even Colonel Erwin speaks in high...