1829 Andrew Jackson - To the Victor Belong the Spoils

In January of 1832 when Jackson nominated Martin Van Buren to the prestigious position of minister to Britain, Senator Henry Clay denounced it as nothing more than the same patronage practices that had been practiced for years in Van Buren's home state of New York.  In response, New York Senator William L. Marcy defended the appointment with his famous words "to the victor belong the spoils of the enemy".

"It may be, sir, that the politicians of the United States are not so fastidious as some gentlemen are, as to disclosing the principles on which they act. They boldly preach what they practise. When they are contending for victory, they avow their intention of enjoying the fruits of it. If they are defeated, they expect to retire from office. If they are successful, they claim, as a matter of right, the advantages of success. They see nothing wrong in the rule, that to the victor belong the spoils of the enemy."

Senator WILLIAM LEARNED MARCY, remarks in the Senate, January 25, 1832, Register of Debates in Congress, vol. 8, col. 1325.

Senator Marcy was defending not only his fellow New Yorker, but President Andrew Jackson as well.  In fact, some people falsely attribute this quote to President Jackson himself.   To provide some context here, Senator Henry Clay who attacked Martin Van Buren was himself attacked 8 years earlier as the recipient of patronage.   Senator Henry Clay was well known for his infamous for his role in the 1824 election where the electoral college failed to pick a clear winner, and the decision went to House of Congress.  Then Speaker of the House Clay played a pivotal role in getting the House to vote for John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson.  In what Jackson called a 'Corrupt Bargain', Henry Clay was rewarded with an appointment to the Secretary of State.  Martin Van Buren, who was senator at the time, led an opposition to the Adams administration and helped to form a coalition of Jeffersonian Republicans that eventually backed Andrew Jackson in the 1828.  Van Buren briefly then left the Senate in 1828 to be governor of New York but gave that up to be Jackson's secretary of state.  So here we have a Senator from New York defending the so-called patronage appointment of a fellow New Yorker by a man who himself was accused of receiving a patronage appointment.  I'm sure very few members of the Senate and the newspapers of the day missed the irony.  Since then Senator Marcy has been labeled as the champion of the spoils system, but a closer look at history suggests that the real champion of the spoils system was President Andrew Jackson  not Senator William Marcy.

Of course, Jackson would argue that he was just looking out for the best interests of the nation, not rewarding his supporters.  In 1829, when Jackson first became president he claimed that Adams had left behind a faction of civil service appointments that were lazy, arrogant and hell-bent on trying to derail his agenda. For the good of the country, he was determined to root them out. In his first Annual Address to Congress, Jackson asked Congress to provide him with the tools necessary. He urged them to expand and generalize the Tenure of Office Act of 1820 so that it could be applied to most if not all federal office appointments.  This act limited high level federal appointments to one term of four years.   Jackson suggested that he simply wanted to create a rotation of office' which he called a "leading republican principle" that would "give healthful action to the system."  His critics, on the other hand argued that under this guise of reform, many of the offices were being doled out to supporters of Jackson's campaign.  Nevertheless, Jackson went right into action. Two of his first appointments were politically connected Newspaper editors like Amos Kendall and Samuel Swartwout.  Kendall became the auditor for the U.S. Department of Treasury, and Wartwout was rewarded as collector of the New York City customhouse.  Kendall reported directly to President Jackson and immediately went to work uncovering fraud in the Treasury Department including that of the previous auditor Tobias Watkins who had embezzled $7,000.  Swartwout, on the other hand brought in more corruption and fraud than he uncovered.  After serving 8 years at the New York City customhouse, Swartwout was accused of embezzling $1,225,705.69 and fleeing the country.

Probably the most significant appointment made was Jackson supporter Martin Van Buren to Secretary of State.  To Jackson's critics, rewarding such a big supporter of Jackson must have seemed hypocritical coming from the man who accused his predecessor of arranging a 'corrupt bargain'.   I can only imagine them shaking their heads when the President's address was read to Congress and they heard him taking one more opportunity to attack his predecessor for "rewarding" a congressman that played a pivotal role in the 1824 election. There is little doubt, that he was referring to Henry Clay. Jackson had just finished urging Congress to abolish the electoral college, when he wrote that at minimum they should disqualify any individual in Congress who was actively involved in electing the president from being appointed to a higher office.  His critics must have been thinking how arrogant Jackson is, when in the very next paragraph he explained why that same rule did not apply to his appointments.  While Jackson acknowledged that the purest approach would be to restrict the President from appointing anyone who actively worked for his campaign or supported his election, he felt there should be an exception for those individuals of "highest rank the best talents and political experience".  I guess, in Jackson's mind, Henry Clay was not a man of "highest rank" or "best talents", but his supporters like Martin Van Buren, Amos Kendall and Samuel Swartwout were.

"While members of Congress can be constitutionally appointed to offices of trust and profit it will be the practice, even under the most conscientious adherence to duty, to select them for such stations as they are believed to be better qualified to fill than other citizens; but the purity of our Government would doubtless be promoted by their exclusion from all appointments in the gift of the President, in whose election they may have been officially concerned. The nature of the judicial office and the necessity of securing in the Cabinet and in diplomatic stations of the highest rank the best talents and political experience should, perhaps, except these from the exclusion."

Jackson then turned his attention to the Tenure of Office Act.  He urged Congress to expand the act in order to allow the elimination of individuals who had become indifferent to the public interests and were now using their office to promote their own selfish interests rather than to serve the people.  Without rotation in office,  Jackson argued that many individuals considered themselves appointed for life and treated their office as a form of property (something they owned) and used it to promote their own self interests.  He explained that while some had fallen victim to corruption, others had simply fallen victim to their own ideology.  Either way, the result was that public officers were building "an engine for the support of the few at the expense of the many".  Jackson, wrote that there was no reason why all federal appointments should not be restricted to four years as outlined in the Tenure of Office Act.  He suggested that the jobs did not require what we might today call 'Rocket Science' skills, but rather any intelligent man could "readily qualify themselves for their performance".   Jackson concluded that more is lost by keeping the same men in office term after term, than is gained by their experience.  Therefore, Jackson urged Congress to secure a general extension of the 1820 tenure of Office Act to limit most if not all appointments to four years.

"There are, perhaps, few men who can for any great length of time enjoy office and power without being more or less under the influence of feelings unfavorable to the faithful discharge of their public duties. Their integrity may be proof against improper considerations immediately addressed to themselves, but they are apt to acquire a habit of looking with indifference upon the public interests and of tolerating conduct from which an unpracticed man would revolt. Office is considered as a species of property, and government rather as a means of promoting individual interests than as an instrument created solely for the service of the people. Corruption in some and in others a perversion of correct feelings and principles divert government from its legitimate ends and make it an engine for the support of the few at the expense of the many. The duties of all public officers are, or at least admit of being made, so plain and simple that men of intelligence may readily qualify themselves for their performance; and I can not but believe that more is lost by the long continuance of men in office than is generally to be gained by their experience. I submit, therefore, to your consideration whether the efficiency of the Government would not be promoted and official industry and integrity better secured by a general extension of the law which limits appointments to four years."

By this point in his presidency, Jackson had taken significant actions already.  In the beginning of his term Jackson removed 919 officials, amounting to almost 10% of the government positions. There was perhaps much anger from the ranks of the government, and Jackson took this opportunity to defend his actions.   He explained that no appointee is guaranteed for life, and that there is no such thing as the "right" to keeping a government job.  Jackson was very clear here, government jobs were created to serve the people, not to give support to particular men.  Government workers serve at the pleasure of the people, and when they no longer are benefiting the public they should be removed.    No severance pays, no job assistance, they should simply be let go.  Jackson went further and wrote that the only people with any right to complain are the American people who are being hurt by the selfishness and arrogance of the worker.

"In a country where offices are created solely for the benefit of the people no one man has any more intrinsic right to official station than another. Offices were not established to give support to particular men at the public expense. No individual wrong is, therefore, done by removal, since neither appointment to nor continuance in office is a matter of right. The incumbent became an officer with a view to public benefits, and when these require his removal they are not to be sacrificed to private interests. It is the people, and they alone, who have a right to complain when a bad officer is substituted for a good one. He who is removed has the same means of obtaining a living that are enjoyed by the millions who never held office. The proposed limitation would destroy the idea of property now so generally connected with official station, and although individual distress may be some times produced, it would, by promoting that rotation which constitutes a leading principle in the republican creed, give healthful action to the system."

By Jackson's words he argued that he was not creating a spoils system, but his actions whether intentionally or not ushered in what Senator William Marcy described as a spoils system.  The Jackson administration described this purge as reform, but the nation viewed it as patronage.  One of the hardest hit organizations was the post office.  In one year, 423 postmasters were removed from their positions, despite having many years of respectable service.  This spoils system stayed in place until the 1880's.   In 1880, there were 100,000 federal employees and every one of them expected to be fired when a new president was elected. President James Garfield worked hard to reform civil service, and it was his assassination that became the impetus for this reform.

References

Presidency.ucsb.edu. (2018). Andrew Jackson: First Annual Message. [online] Available at: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29471 [Accessed 20 Sep. 2018].

HISTORY. (2018). Martin Van Buren. [online] Available at: https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/martin-van-buren [Accessed 20 Sep. 2018].

Miller Center. (2018). Andrew Jackson: Domestic Affairs | Miller Center. [online] Available at: https://millercenter.org/president/jackson/domestic-affairs [Accessed 20 Sep. 2018].

En.wikipedia.org. (2018). Samuel Swartwout. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Swartwout [Accessed 20 Sep. 2018].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system#/media/File:In_memorium--our_civil_service_as_it_was.JPG