A Jackson Man: Amos Kendall and the Rise of American Democracy

5 Political Editor

5 plitical editr During his first few months editing the Georgetown Patriot Kendall held onto his republican ideals of civic virtue and nonpartisanship. He called party politics “contemptible” and condemned any editor who would “libel . . . the character of a respectable citizen . . . for the good of a party.” He promised that “no personal abuse” would ever “flow from his pen.” His job, he wrote, was to “promote learning, refine manners,” and “watch over the morals of the community .” Pointing to flaws in Kentucky social behavior, he attacked “the spirit of gambling and drunkenness” and pleaded with voters not to drink on election day.1 Kendall also maintained the liberal nationalism with which he had greeted the end of the war. He confessed great satisfaction at seeing “wave after wave” of migrants “carrying civilization and refinement” westward and increasing American wealth and power. They must not be “restrained,” he wrote, until they reached “the western ocean.” He praised Congress for “extending the internal communication of the country by roads and canals, and . . . protecting manufactures by a tariff of duties.” He also wrote two articles supporting the new Bank of the United States (BUS) as essential for the national government. His only reservation was the fear that the BUS placed too much power in “the hands of a few individuals.”2 But politics would be hard to avoid. The state and congressional elections would be held the first week in August, and the people were up in arms about the Compensation Act. On March 7, 1816, a House committee chaired by Richard M. Johnson had recommended that the pay of members of Congress, then $6 a day, be changed to an annual salary of $1,500, or approximately $12 a day. With the help of Henry Clay, who was back from Europe and once 1. Georgetown Patriot, 20, 27 Apr., 4, 11, 26 May, 3 Aug. 1816. 2. Ibid., 20, 27 Apr., 11, 18 May 1816. 56 A Jackson Man: Amos Kendall and the Rise of American Democracy again Speaker of the House, the bill passed quickly and was signed into law. There was a massive outcry. All across the country resolutions were passed attacking the measure as “high-handed,” “reprehensible,” and extravagant. Johnson commented that the bill “excited more discontent than the alien or sedition laws.” Later, on the Fourth of July, celebrations were filled with speeches and toasts denouncing the new law. Critics were particularly angry at the unrepublican pretentiousness of replacing a daily wage with a salary and the statement by one congressman that at $6 a day congressmen could not live like “gentlemen.”3 The uproar was an example of the growth of popular participation in politics that had been going on since the era of the Revolution. Even though the first political party system had not proven durable and a truly democratic system of government was not yet in place, Americans found other ways to make their opinions known. The same sort of parades and celebrations that had stirred up opposition to British rule were later used to comment on the ratification of the Constitution and to challenge or defend Federalist rule in the 1790s. Political participation reached a high point in 1798 when lower-class Republican printers used their newspapers to attack the Alien and Sedition Acts.4 The involvement of Johnson and Clay made the Compensation Act a particularly sensitive subject in Kentucky. As soon as they returned home and started running for reelection, they had to attend militia musters and other democratic gatherings to answer angry questions and defend the act. Kendall was in a “delicate” position. He wanted to remain free to speak his mind but could ill afford to alienate either Clay or Johnson by opposing their position. After waiting for two years he had finally received an invitation in May to visit Clay at Ashland. The Speaker was even more “agreeable” than he had hoped, and within half an hour they were chatting in a “familiar” way. The conversation , however, was about the coming election, not about Kendall’s career. Kendall also talked with Johnson’s brother James but could not get a firm agreement on editorial policy.5 For a while Kendall managed to remain independent. He even refused to 3. C. Edward Skeen, “Vox Populi, Vox Dei: The Compensation Act of 1816 and the Rise of Popular Politics,” JER 16 (1986): 253–74 (quotations, 259–60). 4. Waldstreicher, In the Midst of Perpetual Fetes; and Simon P. Newman...