And their case was by no means hopeless. In the electoral college of 1832 these Northeastern States would cast 131 of the total 286 votes. If the industrial forces could hold their communities together as the West had learned to do, and regain their former hold on Ohio, their candidate would again be successful. Losing the Presidency, they would still have, after the apportionment of 1831, a majority of 10 in the Federal House of Representatives, which would guarantee the protective policy against serious modification. And the moral support of the Supreme Court was not without value. Thus if the new President and the Senate be conceded, the popular branch of Congress and the national judiciary would make steady bulwarks.
If there were sections of New England, like Maine, or of the Middle States, like western Pennsylvania, whose people would not support the industrial program, there were dominant sections of the old South, like eastern Virginia and all South Carolina, where the leaders either feared or hated Jackson. Nor did all the West love the South. In the States which bordered the Ohio River most men demanded internal improvements at national expense, which all knew the South could not grant. With the ablest New England and Middle States leaders in the Senate and House, why might not the arrangement of 1825 be renewed? It was, then, with every expectation of victory in 1832 that the sanguine Clay came back to Congress in December, 1831; even John Quincy Adams, who now became a member of the House, was not without hope that the ill-selected Cabinet of Jackson would go to pieces and that a "restoration" would follow in due time. Washington was to be the scene of still another conflict of the sections that would threaten the very existence of the Union, not yet accustomed to the idea of a compact nationality.
The best sources for the growth of the various industries before 1830 are government documents. _The Report on Manufactures, Executive Documents_, 22d Cong., 1st Sess., 2 vols., is a rare and valuable work; and _Executive Documents_, 34th Cong., 1st Sess., vol. 4, gives the statistics of manufactures down to 1850 by States. Darby and Dwight's _New Gazetteer of the United States_ (1833), and J. L. Bishop's _History of American Manufactures_ (1868), are useful if sometimes exasperating. Miss Katharine Coman's _The Industrial History of the United States_ (1910) is the best account for general use. J. B. McMaster's _History of the United States_, vol. v (1900), and F. J. Turner's _The Rise of the New West_ already cited (1906), are always serviceable. For a cross-section of the industrial revolution in New England, read C. F. Adams's _Three Episodes of Massachusetts History_ (1903). Davis R. Dewey's _Financial History of the United States_ (1903) is standard; and A. C. McLaughlin's _The Court, the Constitution and Parties_ (1912), gives the best account of the beginnings of judicial supremacy, while W. G. Sumner's _History of American Banking_ (1896) tells the story of the banks by sections. The _American Commonwealth_ histories are serviceable for the individual States. For the biographies of leading statesmen, the _American Statesmen_ and _American Crises_ series are satisfying. Intellectual life is well treated in W. P. Trent's _History of American Literature_ (1903), G. W. Sheldon's _American Painters_ (1899), and Lorado Taft's _History of American Sculpture_ (1903).