Test Bank for Roachs Introductory

Clinical Pharmacology, 9th Edition:

Ford
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://testbankbell.com/dow
nload/test-bank-for-roachs-introductory-clinical-pharmacology-9th-edition-ford/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Test Bank for Roachs Introductory Clinical

Pharmacology, 11th Edition, Susan M Ford

http://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-roachs-
introductory-clinical-pharmacology-11th-edition-susan-m-ford/

Test Bank for Roachs Introductory Clinical Pharmacology

10th North American Edition Susan M Ford

http://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-roachs-
introductory-clinical-pharmacology-10th-north-american-edition-
susan-m-ford/

Test Bank For Roach's Introductory Clinical

Pharmacology, 10th Edition by Susan M. Ford MN RN CNE ,
Sally S. Roach

http://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-roachs-
introductory-clinical-pharmacology-10th-edition-by-susan-m-ford-
mn-rn-cne-sally-s-roach/

Test Bank for Introduction to Clinical Pharmacology 9th

Edition

http://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-introduction-to-
clinical-pharmacology-9th-edition/
Test Bank for Introduction to Clinical Pharmacology,
6th Edition: Marilyn Edmunds

http://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-introduction-to-
clinical-pharmacology-6th-edition-marilyn-edmunds/

Test bank Pathophysiology Introductory Concepts and

Clinical Perspectives 2nd Edition Capriotti

http://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-pathophysiology-
introductory-concepts-and-clinical-perspectives-2nd-edition-
capriotti/

Test Bank for Pharmacology 9th Edition McCuistion

http://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-pharmacology-9th-
edition-mccuistion/

Test Bank for Introductory Statistics 9th by Mann

http://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-introductory-
statistics-9th-by-mann/

Test Bank for Pharmacology 9th Edition by McCuistion

http://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-pharmacology-9th-
edition-by-mccuistion/
Test Bank for Roachs Introductory Clinical Pharmacology, 9th Edition: Ford

Test Bank for Roachs Introductory Clinical

Pharmacology, 9th Edition: Ford

To download the complete and accurate content document, go to:

https://testbankbell.com/download/test-bank-for-roachs-introductory-clinical-pharmaco
logy-9th-edition-ford/

Visit TestBankBell.com to get complete for all chapters

Name: __________________________ Date: _____________

1. Which of the following represents mechanisms by which penicillins inhibit bacterial

synthesis? Select all that apply.
A) Inhibition of cell wall synthesis.
B) Disruption of DNA synthesis.
C) Disruption of RNA synthesis.
D) Disruption of protein synthesis.
E) Disruption of binding to host cells.

2. Penicillins are categorized into which of the following four groups? Select all that apply.
A) Synthetic penicillins
B) Natural penicillins
C) Penicillinase-resistant penicillins
D) Aminopenicillins
E) Extended-spectrum penicillins

3. Which of the following are examples of beta-lactamase inhibitors? Select all that apply.
A) Methicillin
B) Amoxicillin
C) Tazobactam
D) Sulbactam
E) Clavulanic acid

4. A nurse monitoring a client taking penicillin should be aware of the common GI tract
adverse reactions, including which of the following? Select all that apply.
A) Glossitis
B) Stomatitis
C) Esophagitis
D) Diarrhea
E) Gastritis

5. Which of the following is true of bacterial superinfections that occur with the
administration of penicillins? Select all that apply.
A) Bacterial superinfections are seen with parenteral administration of penicillins.
B) Bacterial superinfections are seen with oral administration of penicillins.
C) Bacterial superinfections usually occur in the bowel.
D) Bacterial superinfections usually occur in the skin and soft tissue.
E) Bacterial superinfections usually occur in the oral mucosa.

Page 1
 6. A nurse should be monitoring a client taking oral penicillins for which of the following
that may indicate a bacterial superinfection? Select all that apply.
A) Bloody diarrhea
B) Fever
C) Pruritus
D) Abdominal cramping
E) Hives

7. A nurse should monitor which of the following client populations more closely as they
are more likely to develop a superinfection? Select all that apply.
A) Geriatrics
B) Adolescents
C) Chronically ill
D) Long-term penicillin treatment
E) Pediatrics

8. Nurses should monitor blood counts of clients taking penicillins for which of the
following hematopoietic changes? Select all that apply.
A) Pancytopenia
B) Anemia
C) Thrombocytopenia
D) Leukopenia
E) Hemoglobulinemia

9. Penicillins should be used cautiously in clients with which of the following? Select all
that apply.
A) History of allergies
B) Diabetes
C) Asthma
D) Bleeding disorders
E) Hypertension

10. Which of the following should be included in the nurse's pre-administration assessment
prior to a client receiving a penicillin? Select all that apply.
A) Allergy history
B) Medical history
C) Medication history
D) Blood glucose
E) Current symptoms

Page 2
11. Which of the following are examples of a penicillinase-resistant penicillin? Select all
that apply.
A) Dicloxacillin
B) Penicillin G
C) Nafcillin
D) Oxacillin
E) Ampicillin

12. During ongoing assessment of a client receiving amoxicillin (Amoxil), the nurse should
monitor the client for which of the following? Select all that apply.
A) Relief of symptoms
B) Development of a rash
C) Increase in appetite
D) Change in appearance or amount of drainage
E) Decrease in temperature

13. Which of the drug-specific nursing diagnoses may be used in the administration of a
penicillin? Select all that apply.
A) Impaired comfort
B) Impaired skin integrity
C) Diarrhea
D) Impaired urinary elimination
E) Risk of ineffective respiratory function

14. It is best to give penicillins on an empty stomach, one hour before or two hours after a
meal. Which of the following penicillins can be given without regard to meals? Select
all that apply.
A) Amoxicillin (Amoxil)
B) Ampicillin (Principen)
C) Penicillin V (Veetids)
D) Amoxicillin/clavulanate (Augmentin)
E) Carbenicillin indanyl (Geocillin)

15. The oral administration of penicillins can result in fungal superinfections in the oral
cavity. The nurse should examine the client's mouth daily for which of the following?
Select all that apply.
A) Sore tongue
B) Ulceration
C) Black, furry tongue
D) Oral pain
E) Swollen gums

Page 3
16. When skin irritation is present during the administration of a penicillin, the nurse should
advise the client to avoid which of the following? Select all that apply.
A) Harsh soaps
B) Perfumed lotions
C) Antipyretic creams
D) Rubbing the area
E) Wearing rough or irritating clothing

17. The nurse can recommend which of the following to reduce the risk of fungal
superinfections? Select all that apply.
A) Consumption of yogurt
B) Consumption of buttermilk
C) Consumption of Acidophilus
D) Rinsing daily with an alcohol-based mouthwash.
E) Brushing with a soft-bristle toothbrush.

18. The physician writes an order for a pediatric client to receive ampicillin (Principen) 250
mg every six hours for seven days. The client is unable to swallow tablets, but the
ampicillin is available in a 125 mg/5 ml suspension. How many teaspoonfuls will the
client receive each day?

19. The physician writes an order for a client to receive amoxicillin (Amoxil) 700 mg twice
daily for 14 days. Amoxicillin is available in a 250 mg/5 mL suspension. How many mL
will the client need for 14 days?

20. The physician orders penicillin V (Veetids) 350 mg by mouth every eight hours for a
client. The client is unable to swallow tablets due to swelling in the throat and mouth.
Penicillin V is available in a 125 mg/5 mL suspension. How many mL will the nurse
need to prepare for each dose?

21. A patient who has been on penicillin therapy for several days has developed inflamed
oral mucous membranes and swelling in the tongue and the gums. The primary health
care provider has diagnosed it as a fungal superinfection of the oral cavity resulting in
impaired oral mucous membranes. Which of the following interventions should the
nurse perform?
A) Inspect mouth and gums regularly.
B) Instruct patient to avoid brushing teeth.
C) Offer patient a liquid diet.
D) Instruct the patient to gargle every two hours.

Page 4
22. A patient with a throat infection has been recommended penicillin therapy by the
primary health care provider. Before administering the first dose of penicillin to the
patient, which of the following interventions should the nurse perform as part of the
pre-administration assessment?
A) Perform renal and hepatic function tests.
B) Inspect patient's stools.
C) Evaluate the patient's lifestyle and diet.
D) Obtain patient's general health history.

23. A 26-year-old female patient with a skin infection has been prescribed 400 mg
bacampicillin to be taken orally. Which of the following instructions should the nurse
include in the patient teaching plan?
A) If a dosage is missed, increase the next dosage to meet the daily quota.
B) Bacampicillin will reduce the effectiveness of birth control pills.
C) Take drug on an empty stomach, an hour before or two hours after meals.
D) Avoid use of skin-care products, like moisturizers, when on penicillin therapy.

24. A patient undergoing penicillin therapy shows improvement and states that he is feeling
better. Which of the following interventions is the nurse most likely to perform in such a
situation?
A) Instruct patient to increase dietary intake.
B) Inform the primary health provider immediately.
C) Record evaluations on patient's chart.
D) Inquire about any previous drug allergies.

25. After administering penicillin as prescribed, a patient shows signs of diarrhea and
informs the nurse that there is blood in his stools. Which of the following interventions
should the nurse perform?
A) Contact primary health provider immediately.
B) Include yogurt or buttermilk in patient's diet.
C) Decrease fiber content in diet.
D) Continue with prescribed regimen.

26. A nurse is caring for a patient who is being administered penicillin. What are the
common adverse reactions to penicillin a nurse should assess for?
A) Inflammation of the tongue and mouth
B) Impaired oral mucous membranes
C) Severe hypotension
D) Sudden loss of consciousness

Page 5
27. The primary health provider has prescribed 764 mg of carbenicillin indanyl sodium to
be taken orally four times a day. The available tablet contains carbenicillin indanyl
sodium equivalent to 382 mg of carbenicillin. The nurse should administer how many
tablet/s to the patient four times a day?
A) 2
B) 2.5
C) 3
D) 3.5

28. A nurse is required to administer a parenteral form of penicillin to a patient. Which of

the following interventions should a nurse perform when preparing penicillin in
parenteral form?
A) Extract penicillin from vial and then reconstitute.
B) Save excess antibiotic after reconstitution for later use.
C) Use any available diluent for reconstitution.
D) Shake the vial well to distribute the drug evenly.

29. A doctor prescribes a patient 3.375 g piperacillin sodium and tazobactam (Zosyn) every
six hours. After reconstitution, the concentration of the drug is 2.25 g/50 mL. Which of
the following quantity of the reconstituted solution should the nurse administer to the
patient?
A) 60 mL
B) 65 mL
C) 70 mL
D) 75 mL

30. A 48-year-old patient with an ear infection is being assessed for penicillin therapy.
When assessing the patient's drug history, the nurse finds that the patient is taking
beta-adrenergic blocking drugs to control his blood pressure. Which of the following
risks is this patient most susceptible to if penicillin is administered?
A) Anaphylactic shock
B) Higher blood pressure
C) Excess bleeding
D) Heart attack

Page 6
Test Bank for Roachs Introductory Clinical Pharmacology, 9th Edition: Ford

Answer Key
1. A, B, C, D
2. B, C, D, E
3. C, D, E
4. A, B, D, E
5. B, C
6. A, B, D
7. A, C, D
8. B, C, D
9. A, B, D, E
10. A, B, C, E
11. A, C, D
12. A, C, D, E
13. A, B, C, E
14. A, C
15. A, B, C, D, E
16. A, B, D, E
17. A, B, C, D, E
18. 8 teaspoonfuls per day
19. 196 mL
20. 14 mL
21. A
22. D
23. B
24. C
25. A
26. A
27. A
28. D
29. D
30. A

Page 7

Visit TestBankBell.com to get complete for all chapters

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 The Hartford Convention.

This opposition finally culminated in the assembling of a

convention at Hartford, at which delegates were present from all of
the New England states. They sat for three weeks with closed doors,
and issued an address which will be found in this volume in the book
devoted to political platforms. It was charged by the Democrats that
the real object of the convention was to negotiate a separate treaty of
peace, on behalf of New England, with Great Britain, but this charge
was as warmly denied. The exact truth has not since been discovered,
the fears of the participants of threatened trials for treason, closing
their mouths, if their professions were false. The treaty of Ghent,
which was concluded on December 14th, 1814, prevented other
action by the Hartford convention than that stated. It had assembled
nine days before the treaty, which is as follows:
 Treaty of Ghent.

This treaty was negotiated by the Right Honorable James Lord

Gambier, Henry Goulburn, Esq., and William Adams, Esq., on the
part of Great Britain, and John Quincy Adams, James A. Bayard,
Henry Clay, Jonathan Russell, and Albert Gallatin, on behalf of the
United States.
The treaty can be found on p. 218, vol. 8, of Little & Brown’s
Statutes at Large. The first article provided for the restoration of all
archives, records, or property taken by either party from the other
during the war. This article expressly provides for the restoration of
“slaves or other private property.” The second article provided for the
cessation of hostilities and limitation of time of capture. The third
article provided for the restoration of prisoners of war.
The fourth article defined the boundary established by the treaty of
1783, and provided for commissioners to mark the same.
The fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth articles established rules to
govern the proceedings of the commissioners.
The ninth article bound the United States and His Britannic
Majesty to end all hostilities with Indian tribes, with whom they were
then respectively at war.
The tenth article reads as follows:—
“Whereas the traffic in slaves is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity
and justice; and, whereas, both His Majesty and the United States are desirous of
continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that both
the contracting parties shall use their best endeavors to accomplish so desirable an
object.”
The eleventh and last article provides for binding effect of the
treaty, upon the exchange of ratifications.
The position of New England in the war is explained somewhat by
her exposed position. Such of the militia as served endured great
hardships, and they were almost constantly called from their homes
to meet new dangers. Distrusting their loyalty, the general
government had withheld all supplies from the militia of
Massachusetts and Connecticut for the year 1814, and these States
were forced to bear the burden of supporting them, at the same time
contributing their quota of taxes to the general government—
hardships, by the way, not greater than those borne by Pennsylvania
and Ohio in the late war for the Union, nor half as hard as those
borne by the border States at the same time. True, the coast towns of
Massachusetts were subjected to constant assault from the British
navy, and the people of these felt that they were defenceless. It was
on their petition that the legislature of Massachusetts finally, by a
vote of 226 to 67, adopted the report favoring the calling of the
Hartford Convention. A circular was then addressed to the
Governors of the other States, with a request that it be laid before
their legislatures, inviting them to appoint delegates, and stating that
the object was to deliberate upon the dangers to which the eastern
section was exposed, “and to devise, if practicable, means of security
and defence which might be consistent with the preservation of their
resources from total ruin, and not repugnant to their obligations as
members of the Union.” The italicized portion shows that there was
at least then no design of forming a separate treaty, or of promoting
disunion. The legislatures of Connecticut and Rhode Island endorsed
the call and sent delegates. Those of New Hampshire and Vermont
did not, but delegates were sent by local conventions. These
delegates, it is hardly necessary to remark, were all members of the
Federal party, and their suspected designs and action made the
“Hartford Convention” a bye-word and reproach in the mouths of
Democratic orators for years thereafter. It gave to the Democrats, as
did the entire history of the war, the prestige of superior patriotism,
and they profited by it as long as the memory of the war of 1812 was
fresh. Indeed, directly after the war, all men seemed to keep in
constant view the reluctance of the Federalists to support the war,
and their almost open hostility to it in New England. Peace brought
prosperity and plenty, but not oblivion of the old political issues, and
this was the beginning of the end of the Federal party. Its decay
thereafter was rapid and constant.
The eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth Congresses had continued
Democratic. The fourteenth began Dec. 4, 1815, with the Democratic
majority in the House increased to 30. Clay had taken part in
negotiating the treaty, and on his return was again elected to the
House, and was for the third time elected speaker. Though 65
Federalists had been elected, but 10 were given to Federal candidates
for speaker, this party now showing a strong, and under the
circumstances, a very natural desire to rub out party lines. The
internal taxes and the postage rates were reduced.
 The Protective Tariff.

President Madison, in his message, had urged upon Congress a

revision of the tariff, and pursuant to his recommendation what was
at the time called a protective tariff was passed. Even Calhoun then
supported it, while Clay proclaimed that protection must no longer
be secondary to revenue, but of primary importance. The rates fixed,
however, were insufficient, and many American manufactures were
soon frustrated by excessive importations of foreign manufactures.
The position of Calhoun and Lowndes, well known leaders from
South Carolina, is explained by the fact that just then the proposal of
a protective tariff was popular in the south, in view of the heavy
duties upon raw cotton which England then imposed. The
Federalists in weakness changed their old position when they found
the Democrats advocating a tariff, and the latter quoted and
published quite extensively Alexander Hamilton’s early report in
favor of it. Webster, in the House at the time and a leading
Federalist, was against the bill. The parties had exchanged positions
on the question.
Peace brought with it another exchange of positions. President
Madison, although he had vetoed a bill to establish a National Bank
in 1815, was now (in 1816) anxious for the establishment of such an
institution. Clay had also changed his views, and claimed that the
experiences of the war showed the necessity for a national currency.
The bill met with strong opposition from a few Democrats and nearly
all of the Federalists (the latter having changed position on the
question since 1811), but it passed and was signed by the President.
A bill to promote internal improvements, advocated by Clay, was
at first favored by Madison, but his mind changed and he vetoed the
measure—the first of its kind passed by Congress.
The Democratic members of Congress, before the adjournment of
the first session, held a caucus for the nomination of candidates to
succeed Madison and Gerry. It was understood that the retiring
officers and their confidential friends favored James Monroe of
Virginia. Their wishes were carried out, but not without a struggle,
Wm. H. Crawford of Georgia receiving 54 votes against 65 for
Monroe. The Democrats opposed to Virginia’s domination in the
politics of the country, made a second effort, and directed it against
Monroe in the caucus. Aaron Burr denounced him as an improper
and incompetent candidate, and joined in the protest then made
against any nomination by a Congressional caucus; he succeeding in
getting nineteen Democrats to stay out of the caucus. Later he
advised renewed attempts to break down the Congressional caucus
system, and before the nomination favored Andrew Jackson as a
means to that end. Daniel B. Tompkins was nominated by the
Democrats for Vice-President. The Federalists named Rufus King of
New York, but in the election which followed he received but 24 out
of 217 electoral votes. The Federalists divided their votes for Vice-
President.
Monroe was inaugurated on the 14th of March, 1817, the oath
being administered by Chief Justice Marshall. The inaugural address
was so liberal in its tone that it seemed to give satisfaction to men of
all shades of political opinion. The questions which had arisen during
the war no longer had any practical significance, while the people
were anxious to give the disturbing ones which ante-dated at least a
season of rest. Two great and opposing policies had previously
obtained, and singularly enough each seemed exactly adapted to the
times when they were triumphant. The Federal power had been
asserted in a government which had gathered renewed strength
during what was under the circumstances a great and perilous war,
and the exigencies of that war in many instances compelled the
Republicans or Democrats, or the Democratic-Republicans as some
still called them, to concede points which had theretofore been in
sharp dispute, and they did it with that facility which only Americans
can command in emergencies: yet as a party they kept firm hold of
the desire to enlarge the scope of liberty in its application to the
citizens, and just here kept their original landmark.
It is not singular then that the administration of Monroe opened
what has ever since been known in politics as the “Era of Good
Feeling.” Party differences rapidly subsided, and political serenity
was the order of the day. Monroe made a tour of the States, with the
direct object of inspecting fortifications and means of defence, and in
this way spread the good feeling, without seeming to have any such
object. He was everywhere favorably greeted by the people, and
received by delegations which in many instances were specially made
up of all shades of opinion.
The Cabinet was composed of men of rare political distinction,
even in that day of great men. It was probably easier to be great then
than now, just as it is easier to be a big political hero in the little State
of Delaware than it is in the big States of New York or Pennsylvania.
Yet these men were universally accepted as great without regard to
their localities. All were Republicans or Democrats, with John
Quincy Adams as Secretary of State, Wm. H. Crawford (Monroe’s
competitor for the nomination) as Secretary of the Treasury, John C.
Calhoun as Secretary of War, William Wirt as Attorney-General. All
of these united with the President in the general desire to call a halt
upon the political asperities which were then recognized as a public
evil. On one occasion, during his tour, the citizens of Kennebunk and
its vicinity, in Maine, having in their address alluded to the prospects
of a political union among the people in support of the
administration, the President said in reply:
“You are pleased to express a confident hope that a spirit of mutual
conciliation may be one of the blessings which may result from my
administration. This indeed would be an eminent blessing, and I
pray it may be realized. Nothing but union is waiting to make us a
great people. The present time affords the happiest presage that this
union is fast consummating. It cannot be otherwise; I daily see
greater proofs of it. The further I advance in my progress in the
country, the more I perceive that we are all Americans—that we
compose but one family—that our republican institutions will be
supported and perpetuated by the united zeal and patriotism of all.
Nothing could give me greater satisfaction than to behold a perfect
union among ourselves—a union which is necessary to restore to
social intercourse its former charms, and to render our happiness, as
a nation, unmixed and complete. To promote this desirable result
requires no compromise of principle, and I promise to give it my
continued attention, and my best endeavors.”
 Even General Jackson, since held up to public view by historians
as the most austere and “stalwart” of all politicians, caught the sweet
infection of peace, and thus advised President Monroe:—
“Now is the time to exterminate that monster, called party spirit.
By selecting [for cabinet officers] characters most conspicuous for
their probity, virtue, capacity, and firmness, without regard to party,
you will go far to, if not entirely, eradicate those feelings, which, on
former occasions, threw so many obstacles in the way of government.
The chief magistrate of a great and powerful nation should never
indulge in party feelings. His conduct should be liberal and
disinterested; always bearing in mind, that he acts for the whole and
not a part of the community.”
This advice had been given with a view to influence the
appointment of a mixed political Cabinet, but while Monroe
professed to believe that a free government could exist without
political parties, he nevertheless sought to bring all of the people into
one political fold, and that the Democratic. Yet he certainly and
plainly sought to allay factions in his own party, and with this view
selected Crawford for the Treasury—the gentleman who had been so
warmly supported in the nominating struggle by the Clintonians and
by all who objected to the predominating influence of Virginia in
national politics.
Monroe, like his immediate predecessor, accepted and acted upon
the doctrines of the new school of Republicans as represented by
Clay and Calhoun, both of whom still favored a tariff, while Clay had
become a warm advocate of a national system of internal
improvements. These two statesmen thus early differed on some
questions, but they were justly regarded as the leading friends and
advisers of the administration, for to both still clung the patriotic
recollections of the war which they had so warmly advocated and
supported, and the issue of which attested their wisdom. Clay
preferred to be called a Republican; Calhoun preferred to be called a
Democrat, and just then the terms were so often exchanged and
mingled that history is at fault in the exact designation, while
tradition is colored by the bias of subsequent events and lives.
Monroe’s first inaugural leaned toward Clay’s scheme of internal
improvements, but questioned its constitutionality. Clay was next to
Jefferson the most original of all our statesmen and politicians. He
was prolific in measures, and almost resistless in their advocacy.
From a political standpoint he was the most direct author of the war
of 1812, for his advocacy mainly brought it to the issue of arms,
which through him and Calhoun were substituted for diplomacy.
And Calhoun then stood in broader view before the country than
since. His sectional pride and bias had been rarely aroused, and like
Clay he seemed to act for the country as an entirety. Subsequent
sectional issues changed the views held of him by the people of both
the North and South.
We have said that Monroe leaned toward internal improvements,
but he thought Congress was not clothed by the Constitution with the
power to authorize measures supporting it, and when the
opportunity was presented (May 4, 1822) he vetoed the bill “for the
preservation and repair of the Cumberland road,” and accompanied
the veto with a most elaborate message in which he discussed the
constitutional aspects of the question. A plain majority of the friends
of the administration, under the leadership of Clay, supported the
theory of internal improvements from the time the administration
began, but were reluctant to permit a division of the party on the
question.
Mississippi and Illinois were admitted to the Union during the
“Era of Good Feeling,” without serious political disturbance, while
Alabama was authorized to form a state constitution and
government, and Arkansas was authorized as a separate territorial
government from part of Missouri. In 1819 President Monroe made a
tour through the Southern States to examine their defenses and see
and get acquainted with the people. From the first inauguration of
Monroe up to 1819 party lines can hardly be said to have existed, but
in the sixteenth session of Congress, which continued until May,
1820, new questions of national interest arose, prominent among
which were additional protective duties for our manufactures;
internal improvements by the government; acknowledgments of the
independence of the South American States.
 The Monroe Doctrine.

Upon the question of recognizing the independence of the South

American States, the President made a record which has ever since
been quoted and denominated “The Monroe Doctrine.” It is
embodied in the following abstract of his seventh annual message,
under date of Dec. 2d, 1823:
“It was stated, at the commencement of the last session, that a
great effort was then making in Spain and Portugal to improve the
condition of the people of those countries, and that it appeared to be
conducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely be
remarked that the result has been, so far, very different from what
was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of the globe, with
which we have so much intercourse, and from which we derive our
origin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The
citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in
favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow-men on that side of
the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating
to themselves, we have never taken any part nor does it comport with
our policy to do so. It is only when rights are invaded or seriously
menaced, that we resent injuries, or make preparation for our
defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity
more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious
to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the
allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of
America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their
respective governments. And to the defense of our own, which has
been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and
matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under
which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is
devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor, and to the amicable
relations existing between the United States and those powers, to
declare, that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend
their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our
peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any
European power we have not interfered, and shall not interfere. But
with the governments who have declared their independence, and
maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great
consideration, and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not
view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or
controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European
power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly
disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new
governments and Spain, we declared our neutrality at the time of
their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to
adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgment of the
competent authorities of this government, shall make a
corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable
to their security.
“The late events in Spain and Portugal show that Europe is still
unsettled. Of this important fact no stronger proof can be adduced,
than that the allied powers should have thought it proper, on a
principle satisfactory to themselves, to have interposed by force in
the internal concerns of Spain. To what extent such interposition
may be carried, on the same principle, is a question to which all
independent powers, whose governments differ from theirs, are
interested; even those most remote, and surely none more so than
the United States. Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted
at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter
of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere
in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the
government, de facto, as the legitimate government for us: to
cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by
a frank, firm, and manly policy; meeting, in all instances, the just
claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in
regard to these continents, circumstances are eminently and
conspicuously different. It is impossible that the allied powers should
extend their political system to any portion of either continent
without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can any one
believe, that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt
it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we
should behold such interposition, in any form, with indifference. If
we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and
those new governments, and their distance from each other, it must
be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy
of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in the hope
that other powers will pursue the same course.”
The second election of Monroe, in 1820, was accomplished without
a contest. Out of 231 electoral votes, but one was cast against him,
and that for John Quincy Adams. Mr. Tompkins, the candidate for
Vice-President, was only a little less fortunate, there being 14
scattering votes against him. Neither party, if indeed there was a
Federalist party left made any nominations.
 The Missouri Compromise.

The second session of the 17th Congress opened on the 4th day of
March, 1820, with James Monroe at the head of the Executive
Department of the Government, and the Democratic party in the
majority in both branches of the Federal Legislature. The Cabinet at
that time was composed of the most brilliant minds of the country,
indeed as most justly remarked by Senator Thomas H. Benton in his
published review of the events of that period, it would be difficult to
find in any government, in any country, at any time, more talent and
experience, more dignity and decorum, more purity of private life, a
larger mass of information, and more addiction to business, than was
comprised in the list of celebrated names then constituting the
executive department of the government. The legislative department
was equally impressive. The exciting and agitating question then
pending before Congress was on the admission of the State of
Missouri into the Federal Union, the subject of the issue being the
attempted tacking on of conditions restricting slavery within her
limits. She was admitted without conditions under the so-called
compromise, which abolished it in certain portions of the then
province of Louisiana. In this controversy, the compromise was
sustained and carried entirely by the Democratic Senators and
members from the Southern and slaveholding States aided and
sanctioned by the Executive, and it was opposed by fifteen Senators
from non-slaveholding States, who represented the opposite side on
the political questions of the day. It passed the House by a close vote
of 86 to 82. It has been seriously questioned since whether this act
was constitutional. The real struggle was political, and for the
balance of power. For a while it threatened the total overthrow of all
political parties upon principle, and the substitution of geographical
parties discriminated by the slave line, and thus destroying the
proper action of the Federal government, and leading to a separation
of the States. It was a federal movement, accruing to the benefit of
that party, and at first carried all the Northern democracy in its
current, giving the supremacy to their adversaries. When this effect
was perceived, democrats from the northern non-slaveholding States
took early opportunity to prevent their own overthrow, by voting for
the admission of the States on any terms, and thus prevent the
eventual separation of the States in the establishment of
geographical parties divided by a slavery and anti-slavery line.
The year 1820 marked a period of financial distress in the country,
which soon became that of the government. The army was reduced,
and the general expenses of the departments cut down, despite
which measures of economy the Congress deemed it necessary to
authorize the President to contract for a loan of five million dollars.
Distress was the cry of the day; relief the general demand, the chief
demand coming from debtors to the Government for public lands
purchased under the then credit system, this debt at that time
aggregating twenty-three millions of dollars. The banks failed,
money vanished, instalments were coming due which could not be
met; and the opening of Congress in November, 1820, was saluted by
the arrival of memorials from all the new States praying for the relief
to the purchaser of the public lands. The President referred to it in
his annual message of that year, and Congress passed a measure of
relief by changing the system to cash sales instead of credit, reducing
the price of the lands, and allowing present debtors to apply
payments already made to portions of the land purchased,
relinquishing the remainder. Applications were made at that time for
the establishment of the preemptive system, but without effect; the
new States continued to press the question and finally prevailed, so
that now the preemptive principle has become a fixed part of our
land system, permanently incorporated with it, and to the equal
advantage of the settler and the government.
The session of 1820–21, is remarkable as being the first at which
any proposition was made in Congress for the occupation and
settlement of our territory on the Columbia river—the only part then
owned by the United States on the Pacific coast. It was made by Dr.
Floyd, a representative from Virginia, who argued that the
establishment of a civilized power on the American coast of the
Pacific could not fail to produce great and wonderful benefits not
only to our own country, but to the people of Eastern Asia, China and
Japan on the opposite side of the Pacific Ocean, and that the valley of
the Columbia might become the granary of China and Japan. This
movement suggested to Senator Benton, to move, for the first time
publicly in the United States, a resolution to send ministers to the
Oriental States.
At this time treaties with Mexico and Spain were ratified, by which
the United States acquired Florida and ceded Texas; these treaties,
together with the Missouri compromise—a measure
contemporaneous with them—extinguished slave soil in all the
United States territory west of the Mississippi, except in that portion
which was to constitute the State of Arkansas; and, including the
extinction in Texas consequent upon its cession to a non-
slaveholding power, constituted the largest territorial abolition of
slavery that was ever up to that period effected by any political power
of any nation.
The outside view of the slave question in the United States, at this
time, is that the extension of slavery was then arrested,
circumscribed, and confined within narrow territorial limits, while
free States were permitted an almost unlimited expansion.
In 1822 a law passed Congress abolishing the Indian factory
system, which had been established during Washington’s
administration, in 1796, under which the Government acted as a
factor or agent for the sale of supplies to the Indians and the
purchase of furs from them; this branch of the service then belonged
to the department of the Secretary of War. The abuses discovered in
it led to the discontinuance of that system.
The Presidential election of 1824 was approaching, the candidates
were in the field, their respective friends active and busy, and
popular topics for the canvass in earnest requisition. Congress was
full of projects for different objects of internal improvement, mainly
in roads and canals, and the friends of each candidate exerted
themselves in rivalry of each other, under the supposition that their
opinions would stand for those of their principals. An act for the
preservation of the Cumberland Road, which passed both houses of
Congress, met with a veto from President Monroe, accompanied by a
state paper in exposition of his opinions upon the whole subject of
Federal interference in matters of inter state commerce and roads
and canals. He discussed the measure in all its bearings, and plainly
showed it to be unconstitutional. After stating the question, he
examined it under every head of constitutional derivation under
which its advocates claimed the power, and found it to be granted by
no one of them and virtually prohibited by some of them. This was
then and has since been considered to be the most elaborate and
thoroughly considered opinion upon the general question which has
ever been delivered by any American statesman. This great state
paper, delivered at a time when internal improvement by the federal
government had become an issue in the canvass for the Presidency
and was ardently advocated by three of the candidates and qualified
by two others, had an immense current in its power, carrying with it
many of the old strict constructionists.
The revision of the tariff, with a view to the protection of home
industry, and to the establishment of what was then called “The
American System,” was one of the large subjects before Congress at
the session of 1823–24, and was the regular commencement of the
heated debates on that question which afterwards ripened into a
serious difficulty between the federal government and some of the
Southern States. The presidential election being then depending, the
subject became tinctured with party politics, in which so far as that
ingredient was concerned, and was not controlled by other
considerations, members divided pretty much on the line which
always divided them on a question of constructive powers. The
protection of domestic industry not being among the powers granted,
was looked for in the incidental; and denied by the strict
constructionists to be a substantive term, to be exercised for the
direct purpose of protection; but admitted by all at that time and
ever since the first tariff act of 1789, to be an incident to the revenue
raising power, and an incident to be regarded in the exercise of that
power. Revenue the object, protection the incident, had been the rule
in the earlier tariffs; now that rule was sought to be reversed, and to
make protection the object of the law, and revenue the incident. Mr.
Henry Clay was the leader in the proposed revision and the
champion of the American system; he was ably supported in the
House by many able and effective speakers; who based their
argument on the general distress then alleged to be prevalent in the
country. Mr. Daniel Webster was the leading speaker on the other
side, and disputed the universality of the distress which had been
described; and contested the propriety of high or prohibitory duties,
in the present active and intelligent state of the world, to stimulate
industry and manufacturing enterprise.
The bill was carried by a close vote in both Houses. Though
brought forward avowedly for the protection of domestic
manufactures, it was not entirely supported on that ground; an
increase of revenue being the motive with some, the public debt then
being nearly ninety millions. An increased protection to the products
of several States, as lead in Missouri and Illinois, hemp in Kentucky,
iron in Pennsylvania, wool in Ohio and New York, commanded many
votes for the bill; and the impending presidential election had its
influence in its favor.
Two of the candidates, Messrs. Adams and Clay, voted for and
avowedly supported General Jackson, who voted for the bill, was for
it, as tending to give a home supply of the articles necessary in time
of war, and as raising revenue to pay the public debt; Mr. Crawford
was opposed to it, and Mr. Calhoun had withdrawn as a Presidential
candidate. The Southern planting States were dissatisfied, believing
that the new burdens upon imports which it imposed, fell upon the
producers of the exports, and tended to enrich one section of the
Union at the expense of another. The attack and support of the bill
took much of a sectional aspect; Virginia, the two Carolinas, Georgia,
and some others, being unanimous against it. Pennsylvania, New
York, Ohio, and Kentucky being unanimous for it. Massachusetts,
which up to this time had no small influence in commerce, voted,
with all, except one member, against it. With this sectional aspect, a
tariff for protection, also began to assume a political aspect, being
taken under the care of the party, afterwards denominated as Whig.
The bill was approved by President Monroe; a proof that that careful
and strict constructionist of the constitution did not consider it as
deprived of its revenue character by the degree of protection which it
extended.
A subject which at the present time is exciting much criticism, viz:
proposed amendments to the constitution relative to the election of
President and Vice-President, had its origin in movements in that
direction taken by leading Democrats during the campaign of 1824.
The electoral college has never been since the early elections, an
independent body free to select a President and Vice-President;
though in theory they have been vested with such powers, in practice
they have no such practical power over the elections, and have had
none since their institution. In every case the elector has been an
instrument, bound to obey a particular impulsion, and disobedience
to which would be attended with infamy, and with every penalty
which public indignation could inflict. From the beginning they have
stood pledged to vote for the candidate indicated by the public will;
and have proved not only to be useless, but an inconvenient
intervention between the people and the object of their choice. Mr.
McDuffie in the House of Representatives and Mr. Benton in the
Senate, proposed amendments; the mode of taking the direct vote to
be in districts, and the persons receiving the greatest number of
votes for President or Vice-President in any district, to count one
vote for such office respectively which is nothing but substituting the
candidates themselves for their electoral representatives.
In the election of 1824 four candidates were before the people for
the office of President, General Jackson, John Quincy Adams,
William H. Crawford and Henry Clay. None of them received a
majority of the 261 electoral votes, and the election devolved upon
the House of Representatives. John C. Calhoun had a majority of the
electoral votes for the office of Vice-President, and was elected. Mr.
Adams was elected President by the House of Representatives,
although General Jackson was the choice of the people, having
received the greatest number of votes at the general election. The
election of Mr. Adams was perfectly constitutional, and as such fully
submitted to by the people; but it was a violation of the demos krateo
principle; and that violation was equally rebuked. All the
representatives who voted against the will of their constituents, lost
their favor, and disappeared from public life. The representation in
the House of Representatives was largely changed at the first general
election, and presented a full opposition to the new President. Mr.
Adams himself was injured by it, and at the ensuing presidential
election was beaten by General Jackson more than two to one.
Mr. Clay, who took the lead in the House for Mr. Adams, and
afterwards took upon himself the mission of reconciling the people to
his election in a series of public speeches, was himself crippled in the
effort, lost his place in the democratic party, and joined the Whigs
(then called the national republicans). The democratic principle was
victor over the theory of the Constitution, and beneficial results
ensued. It vindicated the people in their right and their power. It re-
established parties upon the basis of principle, and drew anew party
lines, then almost obliterated under the fusion of parties during the
“era of good feeling,” and the efforts of leading men to make personal
parties for themselves. It showed the conservative power of our
government to lie in the people, more than in its constituted
authorities. It showed that they were capable of exercising the
function of self-government, and lastly, it assumed the supremacy of
the democracy for a long time, and until lost by causes to be referred
to hereafter. The Presidential election of 1824 is remarkable under
another aspect—its results cautioned all public men against future
attempts to govern presidential elections in the House of
Representatives; and it put an end to the practice of caucus
nominations for the Presidency by members of Congress. This mode
of concentrating public opinion began to be practiced as the eminent
men of the Revolution, to whom public opinion awarded a
preference, were passing away, and when new men, of more equal
pretensions, were coming upon the stage. It was tried several times
with success and general approbation, because public sentiment was
followed—not led—by the caucus. It was attempted in 1824 and
failed; all the opponents of Mr. Crawford, by their joint efforts,
succeeded, and justly in the fact though not in the motive, in
rendering these Congress caucus nominations odious to the people,
and broke them down. They were dropped, and a different mode
adopted—that of party nominations by conventions of delegates from
the States.
The administration of Mr. Adams commenced with his inaugural
address, in which the chief topic was that of internal national
improvement by the federal government. This declared policy of the
administration furnished a ground of opposition against Mr. Adams,
and went to the reconstruction of parties on the old line of strict, or
latitudinous, construction of the Constitution. It was clear from the
beginning that the new administration was to have a settled and
strong opposition, and that founded in principles of government—
the same principles, under different forms, which had discriminated
parties at the commencement of the federal government. Men of the
old school—survivors of the contest of the Adams and Jefferson
times, with some exceptions, divided accordingly—the federalists
going for Mr. Adams, the republicans against him, with the mass of
the younger generation. The Senate by a decided majority, and the
House by a strong minority, were opposed to the policy of the new
President.
In 1826 occurred the famous debates in the Senate and the House,
on the proposed Congress of American States, to contract alliances to
guard against and prevent the establishment of any future European
colony within its borders. The mission though sanctioned was never
acted upon or carried out. It was authorized by very nearly a party
vote, the democracy as a party being against it. The President, Mr.
Adams, stated the objects of the Congress to be as follows: “An
agreement between all the parties represented at the meeting, that
each will guard, by its own means, against the establishment of any
future European colony within its own borders, may be advisable.
This was, more than two years since, announced by my predecessor
to the world, as a principle resulting from the emancipation of both
the American continents. It may be so developed to the new southern
nations, that they may feel it as an essential appendage to their
independence.”
Mr. Adams had been a member of Mr. Monroe’s cabinet, filling the
department from which the doctrine would emanate. The
enunciation by him as above of this “Monroe Doctrine,” as it is
called, is very different from what it has of late been supposed to be,
as binding the United States to guard all the territory of the New
World from European colonization. The message above quoted was
written at a time when the doctrine as enunciated by the former
President through the then Secretary was fresh in the mind of the
latter, and when he himself in a communication to the American
Senate was laying it down for the adoption of all the American
nations in a general congress of their deputies. According to
President Adams, this “Monroe Doctrine” (according to which it has
been of late believed that the United States were to stand guard over
the two Americas, and repulse all intrusive colonists from their
shores), was entirely confined to our own borders; that it was only
proposed to get the other States of the New World to agree that, each
for itself, and by its own means, should guard its own territories;
and, consequently, that the United States, so far from extending
gratuitous protection to the territories of other States, would neither
give, nor receive, aid in any such enterprise, but that each should use