Test Bank for Hotel Management and Operations, 5th Edition by O’Fallon, Rutherford

The Hotel Development Process

John Dew

Full chapter at: https://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-hotel-management-and-

operations-5th-edition-by-ofallon-rutherford/

True/False Quiz Questions:

1. T/F According to the author, a developer of a hotel is an entrepreneur and risk taker?
2. T/F In general, the higher a hotel owner pays for the land where the hotel will be built,
the lower the owner is able to charge for a room?
3. T/F After the developer selects an appropriate location to build the hotel, a feasibility
study is often conducted to obtain an analysis of the site by an objective third party?
4. T/F An ownership entity hold the title to the land and the hotel after it has been built?
5. T/F According to the author, it only takes one year for a hotel to go from the original
conception phase to welcoming its first guest?
6. T/F The Ownership Entity, The Developer, and The Management Company must all be
different companies with different people, each operating on an “arm’s length” basis?

Multiple Choice Quiz Questions:

7. The following are all commonly used business structures except a:
a. C Corporation
b. S Corporation
c. Investment Club
d. Limited Liability Company (LLC)
e. None of the above
8. A hotel ownership entity often enters into an agreement to finance and build the hotel
using a:
a. Franchise agreement
b. Development and Construction Management Agreement
c. Management Agreement
d. General Contractor for both financing and building
e. Only a and c

9. A hotel General Contractor is most often selected to build the hotel based upon:
a. The fact that they offered the lowest bid
b. The hotel franchiser requires that specific General Contractors be used
c. Their experience building hotels of a similar design
d. All of the above
e. Only a and c

10. Lending Institutions are most comfortable offering construction loans when the:
a. Loan is 100% personally guaranteed to be repaid by one of the owners
b. The loan-to-value ratio is no greater than 40% equity and 60% loan
c. The developer and general contractor are experienced hotel builders
d. The hotel will be franchised by a national hotel chain

Visit TestBankBell.com to get complete for all chapters

 e. All of the above

11. Costs to be considered in preparing a Construction budget include all but one of the
following:
a. Incentives to the local building inspectors
b. Working Capital
c. Construction Loan Fee
d. Construction

True/False Quiz Answers:

1. T
2. F
3. T
4. T
5. F
6. F

Multiple Choice Quiz Answers:

7. C
8. B
9. E
10. E
11. A

The Art and Science of Opening a Hotel

Tom Dupar

True/False Quiz Questions:

12. T/F The process by which hotel management and franchise companies protect their
brand names is referred as brand integrity?
13. T/F The classification, signage and identification, includes items that are required by the
incoming brand’s standards, but do not currently meet the new standards?
14. T/F Preparing a hotel to carry a new brand is called a flag in the industry?
15. T/F From a planning standpoint, the ideal lead time for a conversion is 12 weeks?
16. T/F Typically, all goods necessary for reflagging are delivered in the late afternoon on
the day prior to the flag change?
17. T/F From a legal standpoint, a hotel company cannot use a former flag’s registration card
to check in guests at the new brand’s hotel?
18. T/F The classification, computer information systems, includes all costs for hardware,
software, cabling installation, and training associated with converting the new brand’s
information systems requirements?
Multiple Choice Quiz Questions:
19. Which of the following are not part of the top entities involved in a hotel’s operation?
a. Owner
b. Management company
c. Employees
d. Brand affiliation agreement
e. All of the above were mentioned in the article as a top entity

20. The classification, _______________, includes items that have the existing brand’s name
or logo on existing items, which must be replaced on the day of the name change.
a. Signage and identification
b. Minimum brand standards
c. Human resources
d. Computer information systems
e. None of the above

21. The classification, _______________, includes all costs associated with hiring and
relocation.
a. Signage and identification
b. Minimum brand standards
c. Human resources
d. Computer information systems
e. None of the above

22. The two major challenges of converting a hotel are:

a. The contract and negotiation process
b. The transition and the contract
c. The timing of the physical change-out and satisfying customers under the new
name
d. The human resource issues and the timing of the physical change-out
e. The contract and the human resource issues

23. The physical change-out refers to:

a. Hiring new employees
b. Hiring new managers
c. Changing the organizational culture
d. Developing new employee manuals
e. Removing the former name
 Another random document
un-related content on Scribd:
respect to a proposed mediation of Great Britain between Spain
and her colonies. The coöperation of the United States was
desired. Mr. Rush informed the British minister that 'the
United States would decline taking part, if they took part at
all, in any plan of pacification, except on the basis of the
independence of the colonies.' 'This,' he added, 'was the
determination to which his government had come on much
deliberation.' … Gallatin writes to J. Q. Adams, June 24,
1823, that before leaving Paris he had said to M.
Chateaubriand on May 13, 'The United States would undoubtedly
preserve their neutrality provided it were respected, and
avoid every interference with the politics of Europe. … On the
other hand, they would not suffer others to interfere against
the emancipation of America.' … After Canning had proposed to
Rush (September 19, 1823) that the United States should
coöperate with England in preventing European interference
with the Spanish-American colonies, Monroe consulted Jefferson
as well as the cabinet, on the course which it was advisable
to take, and with their approbation prepared his message. …
Enough has been quoted to show that Mr. Sumner is not
justified in saying that the 'Monroe doctrine proceeded from
Canning,' and that he was 'its inventor, promoter, and
champion, at least so far as it bears against European
intervention in American affairs.' Nevertheless, Canning is
entitled to high praise for the part which he took in the
recognition of the Spanish republics, a part which almost
justified his proud utterance, 'I called the New World into
existence to redress the balance of the Old.'"

D. C. Gilman,
James Monroe,
chapter 7.

ALSO IN:
C. Sumner,
Prophetic Voices concerning America,
page 157.
 G. F. Tucker,
The Monroe Doctrine.

F. Wharton,
Digest of the International Law of the United States,
section 57 (volume 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824.

The Protective Tariff.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824.

Tenth Presidential Election.
No choice by the People.
Election of John Quincy Adams by the House of Representatives.

"In 1823, as the Presidential election approached, the

influences to control and secure the interests predominating
in the different sections of the country became more active.
Crawford of Georgia, Calhoun of South Carolina, Adams of
Massachusetts, and Clay of Kentucky, were the most prominent
candidates. In December, Barbour of Virginia was superseded,
as Speaker of the House of Representatives, by Clay of
Kentucky; an event ominous to the hopes of Crawford, and to
that resistance to the tariff and to internal improvements
which was regarded as dependent on his success. The question
whether a Congressional caucus, by the instrumentality of
which Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe had obtained the
Presidency, should be again held to nominate a candidate for
that office, was the next cause of political excitement. The
Southern party, whose hopes rested on the success of Crawford,
were clamorous for a caucus. The friends of the other
candidates were either lukewarm or hostile to that expedient.
Pennsylvania, whose general policy favored a protective tariff
and public improvements, hesitated. … But the Democracy of
 that state … held meetings at Philadelphia, and elsewhere,
recommending a Congressional caucus. This motion would have
been probably adopted, had not the Legislature of Alabama,
about this time, nominated Andrew Jackson for the Presidency,
and accompanied their resolutions in his favor with a
recommendation to their representatives to use their best
exertions to prevent a Congressional nomination of a
President. The popularity of Jackson, and the obvious
importance to his success of the policy recommended by
Alabama, fixed the wavering counsels of Pennsylvania, so that
only three representatives from that state attended the
Congressional caucus, which was soon after called, and which
consisted of only 60 members, out of 261, the whole number of
the House of Representatives; of which Virginia and New York,
under the lead of Mr. Van Buren, constituted nearly one half.
{3364}
Notwithstanding this meagre assemblage, Mr. Crawford was
nominated for the Presidency. … But the days of Congressional
caucuses were now numbered. The people took the nomination of
President into their own hands [and John Quincy Adams and
Henry Clay were brought into the field]. … The result of this
electioneering conflict was that, by the returns of the
electoral colleges of the several states, it appeared that
none of the candidates had the requisite constitutional
majority; the whole number of votes being 261—of which Andrew
Jackson had 99, John Quincy Adams 84, William H. Crawford 41,
and Henry Clay 37. [The popular vote cast as nearly as can be
determined, was: Jackson, 153,544; Adams, 108,740; Crawford,
46,618; Clay, 47,136.] For the office of Vice-President, John
C. Calhoun had 180 votes, and was elected. … Of the 84 votes
cast for Mr. Adams, not one was given by either of the three
great Southern slaveholding states. Seventy-seven were given
to him by New England and New York. The other seven were cast
by the Middle or recently admitted states. The selection of
President from the candidates now devolved on the House of
Representatives, under the provisions of the constitution.
But, again, Mr. Adams had the support of none of those
slaveholding states, with the exception of Kentucky, and her
delegates were equally divided between him and General
Jackson. The decisive vote was, in effect, in the hands of Mr.
Clay, then Speaker of the House, who cast it for Mr. Adams; a
responsibility he did not hesitate to assume, notwithstanding
the equal division of the Kentucky delegation, and in defiance
of a resolution passed by the Legislature of that state,
declaring their preference for General Jackson. On the final
vote Andrew Jackson had 7 votes, William H. Crawford 4, and
John Quincy Adams 13; who was, therefore, forthwith declared
President of the United States for four years ensuing the 4th
of March, 1825. … Immediately after his inauguration, Mr.
Adams appointed Henry Clay, of Kentucky, Secretary of State. …
General Jackson was deeply mortified and irritated by Mr.
Clay's preference of Mr. Adams. … He immediately put into
circulation among his friends and partisans an unqualified
statement to the effect that Mr. Adams had obtained the
Presidency by means of a corrupt bargain with Henry Clay, on
the condition that he should be elevated to the office of
Secretary of State. To this calumny Jackson gave his name and
authority, asserting that he possessed evidence of its truth;
and, although Mr. Clay and his friends publicly denied the
charge, and challenged proof of it, two years elapsed before
they could compel him to produce his evidence. This, when
adduced, proved utterly groundless, and the charge false; the
whole being but the creation of an irritated and disappointed
mind. Though detected and exposed, the calumny had the effect
for which it was calculated. Jackson's numerous partisans and
friends made it the source of an uninterrupted stream of abuse
upon Mr. Adams, through his whole administration."

J. Quincy,
Memoir of the Life of John Quincy Adams,
chapters 6-7.

The new administration "stood upon the same political basis as

that of Mr. Monroe. It was but a continuance of the same party
ascendency. It looked to no change of measures, and to no
other change of men than became inevitably necessary to supply
the vacancies which the accidents of political life had
created. Mr. Clay was called to the State Department [and was
maliciously accused of having bargained for it when he threw
his influence at last in Mr. Adams' favor]. … The country …
indulged the hope of a prosperous career in the track which
had been opened by Mr. Madison, and so successfully pursued by
Mr. Monroe. Less confidently, however, it indulged the hope of
a continuance of that immunity from party contention and
exasperation which had characterized the last eight years. The
rising of an opposition was seen, at the very commencement of
this administration, like a dark cloud upon the horizon, which
gradually spread towards the zenith, not without much rumbling
of distant thunder and angry flashes of fire. It was quite
obvious to shrewd observers that the late election had
disappointed many eager spirits, whose discontent was likely
to make head against the predominant party, and, by uniting
the scattered fragments of an opposition which had heretofore
only slept, whilst the country had supposed it extinct, would
present a very formidable antagonist to the new
administration. The extraordinary popularity of General
Jackson, the defeat of his friends by the vote of the House of
Representatives, the neutrality of his political position, his
avowed toleration towards political opponents, and what was
thought to be his liberal views in regard to prominent
political measures—for as yet nothing was developed in his
opinions to set him in direct opposition to the policy or
principles which governed the administration either of Madison
or Monroe—all these considerations gave great strength to the
position which he now occupied, and, in the same degree,
emboldened the hopes of those who looked to him as the proper
person to dispute the next election against the present
incumbent. Many of those who had hoped to see the reign of
good feeling and of abstinence from party strife prolonged,
will remember with what surprise they saw this gathering of
hostile elements, and heard it proclaimed by an authoritative
 political leader [Colonel Richard M. Johnson], in the first
days of the new administration, that it should be and ought to
be opposed, 'even if it were as pure as the angels at the
right hand of the throne of God.' Such a declaration was not
less ominous of what was to come than it was startling for its
boldness and its novelty in the history of the government. …
The opposition … took an organized form—became compact,
eager, intolerant and even vindictive."

J. P. Kennedy,
Memoirs of the Life of William Wirt,
volume 2, chapter 10.

"Monroe was the last President of the Virginian line, John

Quincy Adams the last from New England. The centre of power
was passing from the east to the west. Adams was a genuine New
Englander of the Puritan stock, austerely moral, from his
boyhood laboriously self-trained, not only staid but solemn in
his teens, intensely self-conscious, ever engaged in
self-examination, the punctual keeper of a voluminous diary,
an invariably early riser, a daily reader of the Bible even in
the White House, scrupulously methodical and strictly upright
in all his ways; but testy, unconciliatory, unsympathetic,
absolutely destitute of all the arts by which popularity is
won.
{3365}
His election does the highest credit to the respect of the
electors for public virtue unadorned. The peculiar features of
his father's character were so intensified in him that he may
be deemed the typical figure rather than his father. In
opinions he was a Federalist who having broken with his party
on the question of foreign relations and the embargo had been
put out of its pale but had retained its general mould. As he
was about the last President chosen for merit not for
availability, so he was about the last whose only rule was not
party but the public service. So strictly did he observe the
principle of permanency and purity in the Civil Service, that
 he refused to dismiss from office a Postmaster-General whom he
knew to be intriguing against him. The demagogic era had come
but he would not recognize its coming. He absolutely refused
to go on the stump, to conciliate the press, to do anything
for the purpose of courting popularity and making himself a
party. His obstinacy was fatal to his ambition but is not
dishonourable to his memory."

Goldwin Smith,
The United States,
chapter 4.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824-1825.

The visit of Lafayette.

One of the most deeply interesting events of the year 1824 was
the arrival in the country of the honored Lafayette, companion
of Washington and friend of the American Republic in its
struggle for independence. He came on the invitation of the
national Government and was entertained as its guest. "He
arrived at Staten Island on Sunday, 15th of August, 1824,
accompanied by his son, George Washington Lafayette, and his
son-in-]aw, M. Le Vasseur. Here he remained until Monday, and
was then met and welcomed by a distinguished committee from
New York, who escorted him to that city. … The arrival of
Lafayette was an event which stirred the whole country;
everybody was anxious to see him, and every State and city in
the Union extended an invitation to him to visit such State or
city; and he did so, being everywhere received with the most
enthusiastic manifestations of love and respect. … He spent a
little over a year in the United States, traveling most of the
time. … Having visited every portion of the United States and
received the affectionate homage of the people, General
Lafayette returned to Washington, where he became in fact 'the
Nation's Guest' at the Presidential mansion. Soon after the
meeting of Congress, in December, 1824, a bill was reported by
a joint committee of the two Houses granting to him a township
 of land and the sum of $200,000, which became a law."

N. Sargent,
Public Men and Events, 1817-1853,
volume 1, page 89-91.

ALSO IN:
A. Levasseur,
Lafayette in America, in 1824-1825.

B. Tuckerman,
Life of General Lafayette,
volume 2, chapter 7.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824-1836.

Schemes of the Slave Power for acquiring Texas.

See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1825-1828.

Opposition to the Administration.
The question of Internal Improvements.
Reconstruction of Parties.
Democrats and National Republicans.

The inaugural address of President Adams "furnished a topic"

against him, and "went to the reconstruction of parties on the
old line of strict, or latitudinous, construction of the
constitution. It was the topic of internal national
improvement by the federal government. The address extolled
the value of such works, considered the constitutional
objections as yielding to the force of argument, expressed the
hope that every speculative (constitutional) scruple would be
solved in a practical blessing; and declared the belief that,
in the execution of such works, posterity would derive a
fervent gratitude to the founders of our Union and most deeply
feel and acknowledge the beneficent action of our government.
The declaration of principles which would give so much power
to the government … alarmed the old republicans, and gave a
new ground of opposition to Mr. Adams's administration, in
addition to the strong one growing out of the election in the
House of Representatives. … This new ground of opposition was
greatly strengthened at the delivery of the first annual
message, in which the topic of internal improvement was again
largely enforced, other subjects recommended which would
require a liberal use of constructive powers, and Congress
informed that the President had accepted an invitation from
the American States of Spanish origin, to send ministers to
their proposed Congress on the Isthmus of Panama.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.

It was, therefore, clear from the beginning that the new

administration was to have a settled and strong opposition. …
There was opposition in the Senate to the confirmation of Mr.
Clay's nomination to the State department, growing out of his
support of Mr. Adams in the election of the House of
Representatives, and acceptance of office from him; but
overruled by a majority of two to one."

T. H. Benton,
Thirty Years' View,
volume 1, chapter 21.

"From the very beginning of this Administration both factions

of the Strict Constructionists united in an opposition to the
President which became stronger through his whole term of
office, until it overcame him. His ill-advised nomination of
Clay to a post in his Cabinet gave color to the charge of a
corrupt bargain between him and Clay, by which Adams was to
receive the Clay vote in the House, and Clay was to be
rewarded by the position of Secretary of State, which was then
usually considered a stepping stone to the Presidency. Clay
angrily denied any such bargain, and the renewal of charges
 and denials, each with its appropriate arguments, gave
abundant material for debate. The Clay and Adams factions soon
united and took the distinctive party name of National
Republicans. Some years afterward this name was changed to
that of Whigs. They maintained the loose constructionist
principles of the Federalists, and, in addition, desired a
Protective Tariff and a system of public improvements at
national expense. … In October, 1825, the Tennessee
Legislature nominated Jackson for the Presidency in 1828, and
Jackson accepted the nomination. Crawford's continued
ill-health compelled his adherents to look elsewhere for a
candidate, and they gradually united upon Jackson. At first
the resulting coalition was known as 'Jackson Men,' but, as
they began to take the character of a national party, they
assumed the name of Democrats, by which they have since been
known. They maintained the strict constructionist principles
of the Republican party, though the Crawford faction in the
South went further, and held the extreme ground of the
Kentucky Resolutions of 1799."

A. Johnston,
History of American Politics, 2d edition,
chapter 11.

ALSO IN:
C. Schurz,
Life of Henry Clay,
volume 1, chapters 10-12.

{3366}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828.

The Tariff "Bill of Abominations."
Change of front in New England.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES: A. D. 1828).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828.
Eleventh Presidential Election.
Triumph of Jackson and the new Democracy.

Andrew Jackson was again put in nomination for the Presidency,

while President Adams was supported for re-election by the
National Republicans. "The campaign was conducted, on both
sides, on very ruthless methods. Niles said it was worse than
the campaign of 1798. Campaign extras of the 'Telegraph' were
issued weekly, containing partisan material, refutations of
charges against Jackson, and slanders on Adams and Clay. The
Adams party also published a monthly of a similar character.
The country was deluged with pamphlets on both sides. These
pamphlets were very poor stuff, and contain nothing important
on any of the issues. They all appeal to low tastes and
motives, prejudices and jealousies. … In September, 1827, the
Tammany General Committee and the Albany 'Argus' came out for
Jackson, as it had been determined, in the programme, that
they should do. A law was passed for casting the vote of New
York in 1828 by districts. The days of voting throughout the
country ranged from October 31st to November 19th. The votes
were cast by the Legislature in Delaware and South Carolina;
by districts in Maine, New York, Maryland, Tennessee;
elsewhere, by general ticket. Jackson got 178 votes to 83 for
Adams. The popular vote was 648,273 for Jackson; 508,064 for
Adams. Jackson got only one vote in New England. … For
Vice-President, Richard Rush got all the Adams votes; Calhoun
[who was elected] got all the Jackson votes except 7 of
Georgia, which were given to William Smith, of South Carolina.
General Jackson was therefore triumphantly elected President
of the United States, in the name of reform, and as the
standard-bearer of the people, rising in their might to
overthrow an extravagant, corrupt, aristocratic, federalist
administration, which had encroached on the liberties of the
people, and had aimed to corrupt elections by an abuse of
federal patronage. Many people believed this picture of
Adams's administration to be true. Andrew Jackson no doubt
 believed it. Many people believe it yet. Perhaps no
administration, except that of the elder Adams, is under such
odium. There is not, however, in our history any
administration which, upon a severe and impartial scrutiny,
appears more worthy of respectful and honorable memory. Its
chief fault was that it was too good for the wicked world in
which it found itself. In 1836 Adams said, in the House, that
he had never removed one person from office for political
causes, and that he thought that was one of the principal
reasons why he was not reëlected."

W. G. Sumner,
Andrew Jackson as a Public Man,
chapter 5.

"In this election there was a circumstance to be known and

remembered. Mr. Adams and Mr. Rush were both from the
non-slaveholding, General Jackson and Mr. Calhoun from the
slaveholding States, and both large slave owners themselves,
and both received a large vote (73 each) in the free
States—and of which at least 40 were indispensable to their
election. There was no jealousy, or hostile or aggressive
spirit in the North at that time against the South!"

T. H. Benton,
Thirty Years' View,
volume 1, chapter 38.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.

The Nullification doctrine and ordinance of South Carolina.
The Hayne and Webster debate.
President Jackson's proclamation.
The Compromise Tariff.

"In May, 1828, a meeting of the South Carolina delegation in

Congress was held in Washington, at the rooms of General
Hayne, one of the Senators of that State, to concert measures
against the tariff and the protective policy which it
embodied. From the history of the times, and the disclosures
subsequently made, it is apparent that some violent things
were said at this meeting, but it broke up without any
definite plan. In the course of the following summer, there
were many popular meetings in South Carolina, largely
attended, at which the tariff of 1824 was treated as an act of
despotism and usurpation, which ought to be openly resisted. …
They occasioned anxiety and regret among the friends of the
Union throughout the country, though nothing more. But, in the
autumn, the Legislature of South Carolina adopted an
'Exposition and Protest,' which gave form and substance to the
doctrines which thenceforward became known as 'Nullification.'
In order to understand them, however, as a theory of the
Federal Constitution, it is necessary to state the theory to
which they are opposed, and to overthrow which they were
brought forward. The Government of the United States, under
the Constitution, had hitherto been administered upon the
principle that the extent of its powers is to be finally
determined by its supreme judicial tribunal, not only when
there is any conflict of authority between its several
departments, but also when the authority of the whole
Government is denied by one or more of the States. … Aside
from the authority of [the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions
of 1798]—an authority that was doubtful, because their
interpretation was not clear—there had been no important
assertion of the principle that a State can determine for its
citizens whether they are to obey an act of Congress, by
asserting its unconstitutional character, and that the right
to do this is implied as a right inherent in a State, under
the Constitution, and results from the nature of the
Government. This, however, was what the advocates of
nullification now undertook to establish. The remedy which
they sought, against acts which they regarded as usurpations,
was not revolution, and not the breaking up the Union, as they
claimed; but it was a remedy which they held to exist within
the Union, and to have been contemplated by the people of the
 States when they established the Constitution. How far they
considered such a theory compatible with the continued
existence of the Union, I am not aware that they undertook to
explain. … Although the Legislature of South Carolina had thus
propounded a theory of resistance, and held that there was
then a case in the tariff which would justify a resort to it,
no steps were yet taken toward the immediate exercise of the
asserted power." In the great debate between General Hayne of
South Carolina and Daniel Webster, which occurred in the
Senate, in January, 1830, the doctrine of nullification
received for the first time a discussion which sank deep into
the mind of the nation.
{3367}
The original subject-matter of the debate was a resolution
relating to Western land sales; but Hayne in his first speech
made an attack on New England which drew out Webster in
vindication, and then, when the South Carolinian replied, he
boldly and broadly set forth the nullifying theory which his
State had accepted from the sophistical brain of John C.
Calhoun. It received its refutation then and there, in
Webster's final speech. "The effect of this speech upon the
country, that immediately followed its delivery, it is not
easy for us at the present day to measure. … Vast numbers of
Mr. Webster's speech were … published and circulated in
pamphlet editions, after all the principal newspapers of the
country had given it entire to their readers. The popular
verdict, throughout the Northern and Western and many of the
Southern States was decisive. A great majority of the people
of the United States, of all parties, understood, appreciated,
and accepted the view maintained by Mr. Webster of the nature
of the Constitution, and the character of the government which
it establishes."

G. T. Curtis,
Life of Daniel Webster,
chapter 16 (volume 1).
If Webster's speech had solidified the majority opinion of the
country in resistance to nullification, it had not paralyzed
the nullifying movement. In the summer of 1831, and again in
August, 1832, Calhoun published addresses to the people of
South Carolina, elaborating his doctrine, and "urging an
immediate issue on account of the oppressive tariff
legislation under which the South was then suffering. The
Legislature of South Carolina was convened by the governor to
meet on October 22, for the purpose of calling a convention
'to consider the character and extent of the usurpations of
the general government.' The convention met on November 19,
and adopted without delay an 'ordinance' declaring that the
tariff act of 1828, and the amendments thereto passed in 1832,
were null and void; that it should be held unlawful to enforce
the payment of duties thereunder within the State of South
Carolina; that it should be the duty of the legislature to
make laws giving effect to the ordinance; … and that, if the
general government should attempt to use force to maintain the
authority of the federal law, the State of South Carolina
would secede from the Union,—the ordinance to go into full
effect on February 1, 1833. The legislature, which met again
on November 19, passed the 'appropriate' laws. But these
enactments were not very fierce; as Webster said, they 'limped
far behind the ordinance.' Some preparation, although little,
was made for a conflict of arms;" nor was there any certain
show of readiness in other Southern States to stand by South
Carolina in the position she had taken. "President Jackson's
annual message, which went to Congress on December 4, 1832,
was remarkably quiet in tone," and neither alarmed the
nullifiers nor gave confidence to the friends of the Union;
but "six days later, on December 10, came out Jackson's famous
proclamation against the nullifiers, which spoke thus: 'The
Constitution of the United States forms a government, not a
league. … Our Constitution does not contain the absurdity of
giving power to make laws, and another power to resist them.
To say that any state may at pleasure secede from the Union is
to say that the United States are not a nation.' He appealed
to the people of South Carolina, in the tone of a father, to
desist from their ruinous enterprise; but he gave them also
clearly to understand that, if they resisted by force, the
whole power of the Union would be exerted to maintain its
authority. All over the North, even where Jackson had been
least popular, the proclamation was hailed with unbounded
enthusiasm. … The nullifiers in South Carolina received the
presidential manifesto apparently with defiance. The governor
of the state issued a counter-proclamation. Calhoun resigned
the vice-presidency, and was immediately sent to the Senate to
fight the battle for nullification there." The president, now
thoroughly roused, called on Congress for extraordinary powers
to meet the emergency, and a bill embodying his wishes—called
the "Force Bill"—was introduced. But, at the same time, while
they showed this bold front to the nullifiers, Congress and
the executive began to prepare a retreat from the ground they
had held on the tariff. Henry Clay took the field again, in
the exercise of his peculiar talents for compromise, and the
result was the nearly simultaneous passage (February 26 and
27, 1833) through Congress of the "Force bill" and of a
compromise tariff bill, which latter provided for a graduated
reduction of the duties year by year, until 1842, when they
should stand at 20 per cent., as a horizontal rate, with a
large free-list. "The first object of the measure was
attained: South Carolina repealed her nullification ordinance.
… But before long it became clear that beyond the repeal of
the nullification ordinance, the compromise had settled
nothing. The nullifiers strenuously denied that they had in
any sense given up their peculiar doctrine."

C. Schurz,
Life of Henry Clay,
chapter 14 (volume 2).

"The theory of nullification, as set forth by Calhoun, even

now, after it has received the benefit of careful study and
able expounding by historians, is not clear. He always avowed
 a loyalty to the Union, but the arguments by which he sought
to demonstrate that nullification was compatible with the
existence of the Union, and indeed a guarantee of its
perpetuity, did not occasion much solicitude to the majority
of his party. But no one at the North understood the fallacy
of his reasoning or the real end and aim of his party more
clearly than did the Union men of his state. They reasoned
simply. Said the Camden, S. C. 'Gazette': 'We know of only two
ways, under our government, to get rid of obnoxious
legislation. We must convince a majority of the nation that a
given enactment is wrong and have it repealed in the form
prescribed by the constitution, or resist it
extra-constitutionally by the sword. … But this everlasting
cant of devotion to the Union, accompanied by a recommendation
to do those acts that must necessarily destroy it, is beyond
patient endurance from a people not absolutely confined in
their own mad-houses.' … A fact … that historians have failed
to lay any stress upon, and that nevertheless deserves some
notice, is the holding of a state convention of the Union
party of South Carolina immediately after the nullification
convention had completed its work. It was the last important
action of that party in the state.
{3368}
Randell Hunt, who presented the first resolutions, epitomized
the views of the convention and the question it should
consider in three sentences: 'That the Union party
acknowledges no allegiance to any government except that of
the United States. That in referring this resolution to the
general committee they be instructed to inquire whether it is
not expedient to give a military organization to the Union
party throughout the state. Whether it will not be necessary
to call in the assistance of the general government for
maintaining the laws of the United States against the
arbitrary violence which is threatened by the late
convention.' The resolutions which were adopted declared that
the ordinance of nullification violated the constitution of
the United States and had virtually destroyed the Union, since
by preventing the general government from enforcing its laws
within the boundaries of the state, it made the state a
sovereignty paramount to the United States. They denounced the
provisions of the ordinance as tyrannical and oppressive, and
the test oath as especially incompatible with civil liberty,
in that it disfranchised nearly half the citizens of the
state. They pointed scornfully to the project of a standing
army in the state. … They concluded by declaring the continued
opposition of the signers to the tariff, and their
determination to protect themselves against intolerable
oppression. The resolutions were signed by all the members of
the convention, about 180 in number. In point of fact, the
Unionists were not disposed to favor any compromise measures,
and looked rather with disfavor upon Mr. Clay's bill, as a
measure which was being forced upon the country. Congress,
they thought, ought not to modify the tariff until the
nullification ordinance had been repealed. But the greater
force was with the nullifiers, and the number of their
opponents was dwindling. Caught by the enthusiasm and fighting
spirit of their neighbors, some of the Unionists joined the
nullification military companies that were being organized,
and others, seeing the hopelessness of the struggle against a
superior force, in sorrow and disgust shook the dust of South
Carolina from their feet, preferring to begin life over again
in other parts of the South, less charged with sentiments that
they believed to be treasonable. … The Unionist party, crushed
and helpless, was only too anxious to bury all feuds. It never
was an active force in the state again, but the bold spirit
which had actuated its members was manifested later, when the
struggle for state sovereignty was more widespread; and some
of the most intrepid Union men of the South in the civil war
were those who had fled from South Carolina years before, when
the nullification party had triumphed."

G. Hunt,
South Carolina during the Nullification Struggle
(Political Science Quarterly, June, 1891).
ALSO IN:
W. G. Sumner,
Andrew Jackson as a Public Man,
chapters 10 and 13.

H. von Holst,
Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
volume 1, chapter 12.

J. Parton,
Life of Andrew Jackson,
volume 3, chapters 32-34.

T. H. Benton,
Thirty Years' View,
volume 1, chapters 78-89.

J. C. Calhoun,
Works,
volume 6
(Reports and Public Letters).
O. L. Elliott,
The Tariff Controversy in the United States,
chapter 5.

The following is the text of the "Ordinance to nullify certain

acts of the Congress of the United States, purporting to be
laws laying duties and imposts on the importation of foreign
commodities," adopted by the State Convention of South
Carolina on the 24th of November, 1832:

"Whereas the Congress of the United States by various acts,

purporting to be acts laying duties and imposts on foreign
imports, but in reality intended for the protection of
domestic manufactures, and the giving of bounties to classes
and individuals engaged in particular employments, at the
expense and to the injury and oppression of other classes and
individuals, and by wholly exempting from taxation certain
foreign commodities, such as are not produced or manufactured
in the United States, to afford a pretext for imposing higher
and excessive duties on articles similar to those intended to
be protected, hath exceeded its just powers under the
constitution, which confers on it no authority to afford such
protection, and hath violated the true meaning and intent of
the constitution, which provides for equality in imposing the
burdens of taxation upon the several States and portions of
the confederacy: And whereas the said Congress, exceeding its
just power to impose taxes and collect revenue for the purpose
of effecting and accomplishing the specific objects and
purposes which the constitution of the United States
authorizes it to effect and accomplish, hath raised and
collected unnecessary revenue for objects unauthorized by the
constitution. We, therefore, the people of the State of South
Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and
it is hereby declared and ordained, that the several acts and
parts of acts of the Congress of the United States, purporting
to be laws for the imposing of duties and imposts on the