s could hold their communities together as the West
had learned to do, and regain their former hold on Ohio, their candidate
would again be successful. Losing the Presidency, they would still have,
after the apportionment of 1831, a majority of 10 in the Federal House
of Representatives, which would guarantee the protective policy against
serious modification. And the moral support of the Supreme Court was not
without value. Thus if the new President and the Senate be conceded, the
popular branch of Congress and the national judiciary would make steady
bulwarks.

If there were sections of New England, like Maine, or of the Middle
States, like western Pennsylvania, whose people would not support the
industrial program, there were dominant sections of the old South, like
eastern Virginia and all South Carolina, where the leaders either
feared or hated Jackson. Nor did all the West love the South. In the
States which bordered the Ohio River most men demanded internal
improvements at national expense, which all knew the South could not
grant. With the ablest New England and Middle States leaders in the
Senate and House, why might not the arrangement of 1825 be renewed? It
was, then, with every expectation of victory in 1832 that the sanguine
Clay came back to Congress in December, 1831; even John Quincy Adams,
who now became a member of the House, was not without hope that the
ill-selected Cabinet of Jackson would go to pieces and that a
"restoration" would follow in due time. Washington was to be the scene
of still another conflict of the sections that would threaten the very
existence of the Union, not yet accustomed to the idea of a compact
nationality.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

The best sources for the growth of the various industries before 1830
are government documents. _The Report on Manufactures, Executive
Documents_, 22d Cong., 1st Sess., 2 vols., is a rare and valuable work;
and _Executive Documents_, 34th Cong., 1st Sess., vol. 4, gives the
statistics of manufactures down to 1850 by States. Darby and Dwight's
_New Gazetteer of the United States_ (1833), and J. L. Bishop's _History
of American Manufactures_ (1868), are useful if sometimes exasperating.
Miss Katharine Coman's _The Industrial History of the United States_
(1910) is the best account for general use. J. B. McMaster's _History of
the United States_, vol. v (1900), and F. J. Turner's _The Rise of the
New West_ already cited (1906), are always servicea