Part 10

The Whigs entered the contest defiant in confidence and enthusiastic to a degree that had never before been exhibited in the support of any candidate. The devotion of the Whigs to Clay was little less than idolatry, and strong men shed scalding tears over his defeat. He was largely handicapped in his battle by the complications put upon the Whig party by President Tyler. The Cabinet was wholly Democratic and bitterly against Clay. Under the demoralization caused by Tyler’s betrayal of the party the Whigs had lost the House in 1842, but they retained their mastery in the Senate, and a new peril to Clay was soon developed in the growth of the Abolition sentiment of Western New York. Neither Clay nor Polk made campaign speeches, and both maintained themselves with scrupulous dignity throughout the long and exceptionally desperate contest.

Pennsylvania was then, as in 1860, the pivotal State of the struggle, and the death of the Democratic candidate for Governor during the midsummer deprived the Whigs of a source of strength that most likely would have given them the State in October. The Democrats had a violent factional dispute in choosing a candidate for Governor. Mr. Muhlenberg, who had been a bolting candidate against Governor Wolfe in 1835, thereby electing Ritner, the anti-Masonic candidate, was finally nominated for Governor over Francis R. Shunk, the candidate of the opposing faction. Muhlenberg was weakened by his aggressive factional record, and the Democrats were hardly hopeful of his election, but he died just when the struggle was at its zenith, and Shunk was then unanimously and cordially accepted as the Democratic leader.

The Whigs had nominated General Markle, of Westmoreland, who was unquestionably the strongest man they could have presented. The Presidential battle was practically fought in that contest for Governor, and when Shunk was elected by 4397 majority, there were few who cherished much hope of Clay’s election. Pennsylvania lost in October could not be regained in November, but the Whigs did not in any measure relax their efforts, and Polk carried the State over Clay by 6332.

When Pennsylvania faltered the greatly impaired hopes of the Whigs centred in New York, as it was believed that New York might decide the contest in favor of Clay, even with Pennsylvania certain to vote against him. The nomination of Silas Wright for Governor had thoroughly united the Van Buren followers in support of Polk, and while Clay stood against the annexation of Texas and the extension of the slave power, the antislavery sentiment of New York was greatly strengthened by the fact that both Clay and Polk were Southerners and slaveholders. Birney, the Abolition candidate, received 15,812 votes, while Polk’s majority in the State was 5106. Mr. Greeley, who was one of the leaders in the antislavery movement, and much more practical than the organized Abolitionists, bitterly denounced that party for defeating Clay. In his Whig Almanac for 1845 he had an elaborate review of the contest, in which he said:

“The year 1844 just ended has witnessed one of the most extraordinary political contests that has ever occurred. So nice and equal a balance of parties; so universal and intense an interest; so desperate and protracted a struggle, are entirely without parallel.... James K. Polk owes his election to the Birney or Liberty party. Had there been no such party drawing its votes nine-tenths from the Whig ranks, Mr. Clay would have received at least the votes of New York and Michigan, in addition to those actually cast for him, giving him 146 electoral votes to Polk’s 129. To Birney & Co., therefore, is the country indebted for the election of Polk and the annexation and anti-tariff ascendency in the Federal Government.”

The number of States voting was 26, the same as in 1840. The new Congressional apportionment had reduced the Representatives from 242 to 223, making the total number of electors 275. The following table exhibits the popular and electoral vote:

═══════════════════╤══════════════════════════════════╦═══════════════ │ POPULAR VOTE. ║ ELECTORS. ├───────────┬───────────┬──────────╫───────┬─────── STATES. │ James K. │ Henry │ James G. ║ Polk. │ Clay. │ Polk. │ Clay. │ Birney. ║ │ ───────────────────┼───────────┼───────────┼──────────╫───────┼─────── Maine │ 45,719 │ 34,378 │ 4,836 ║ 9 │ ―― New Hampshire │ 27,160 │ 17,866 │ 4,161 ║ 6 │ ―― Vermont │ 18,041 │ 26,770 │ 3,954 ║ ―― │ 6 Massachusetts │ 52,846 │ 67,418 │ 10,860 ║ ―― │ 12 Rhode Island │ 4,867 │ 7,322 │ 107 ║ ―― │ 4 Connecticut │ 29,841 │ 32,832 │ 1,943 ║ ―― │ 6 New York │ 237,588 │ 232,482 │ 15,812 ║ 36 │ ―― New Jersey │ 37,495 │ 38,318 │ 131 ║ ―― │ 7 Pennsylvania │ 167,535 │ 161,203 │ 3,138 ║ 26 │ ―― Delaware │ 5,996 │ 6,278 │ ―――― ║ ―― │ 3 Maryland │ 32,676 │ 35,984 │ ―――― ║ ―― │ 8 Virginia │ 49,570 │ 43,677 │ ―――― ║ 17 │ ―― North Carolina │ 39,287 │ 43,232 │ ―――― ║ ―― │ 11 South Carolina[12] │ ―――― │ ―――― │ ―――― ║ 9 │ ―― Georgia │ 44,177 │ 42,100 │ ―――― ║ 10 │ ―― Alabama │ 37,740 │ 26,084 │ ―――― ║ 9 │ ―― Mississippi │ 25,126 │ 19,206 │ ―――― ║ 6 │ ―― Louisiana │ 13,782 │ 13,083 │ ―――― ║ 6 │ ―― Kentucky │ 51,988 │ 61,255 │ ―――― ║ ―― │ 12 Tennessee │ 59,917 │ 60,030 │ ―――― ║ ―― │ 13 Missouri │ 41,369 │ 31,251 │ ―――― ║ 7 │ ―― Arkansas │ 9,546 │ 5,504 │ ―――― ║ 3 │ ―― Ohio │ 149,117 │ 155,057 │ 8,050 ║ ―― │ 23 Michigan │ 27,759 │ 24,337 │ 3,632 ║ 5 │ ―― Indiana │ 70,181 │ 67,867 │ 2,106 ║ 12 │ ―― Illinois │ 57,920 │ 45,528 │ 3,570 ║ 9 │ ―― ├───────────┼───────────┼──────────╫───────┼─────── Totals │ 1,337,243 │ 1,299,062 │ 62,300 ║ 170 │ 105 ═══════════════════╧═══════════╧═══════════╧══════════╩═══════╧═══════

[12] Chosen by Legislature.

The Whigs, in keen despair over the defeat of their ablest and most beloved champion, charged fraud as the controlling factor in giving the Democrats their victory, but the battle had been fought and lost, and there was nothing left for them but submission. The electoral count was uneventful, and Polk and Dallas were formally declared elected President and Vice-President without objection.

The most desperate contests outside of New York and Pennsylvania were made in Tennessee and Delaware. Tennessee was the home of Polk, and the “Old Hero of New Orleans” threw himself into the contest for Polk with tireless energy. He inspired his veteran followers not only because he wanted Polk elected, but because he much more wanted Clay defeated. Clay had defeated him for President in the House in 1825, and Jackson never forgot a friend and rarely forgave an enemy. It was many days after the election before the vote of Tennessee could be ascertained, and it was claimed by both parties until the official vote was declared. It was finally announced that Clay had carried the State by 113, and the success of Clay in that State was the only silver lining the Whigs had to the dark cloud of their defeat.

Another memorable battle, though not in any sense an important contest as affecting the result, was fought in Delaware. The States did not then vote for President on the same day as now. All of them voted for Presidential electors in the month of November, although at that time nearly all the States elected their State officers and Congressmen earlier in the year. Delaware, with only 3 electoral votes, held both her State and her Presidential elections on the second Tuesday of November, and when her election day came around it was known to all that Clay was absolutely defeated for President.

New York and Pennsylvania had voted for Polk a week before, and on the second Tuesday of November only Massachusetts and Delaware were left among the States that had not yet chosen electors. Massachusetts was Whig and hardly contested, but Delaware made a most heroic battle for Clay, even when it was known that a victory in the little Diamond State could not aid the election of their favorite. The Democrats, inspired by their positively assured success in the national contest, exhausted their resources and efforts to win, but in the largest vote ever cast in the State, Clay won by 287 majority, receiving a larger vote than was cast for the Whig candidates for Governor or for Congress, both of whom were successful, the first by 45 majority and the last by 173.

The Kentucky electors met at their Capitol on the day appointed for the electoral colleges to cast their votes for President, and in sorrowing devotion to their chief cast the vote of the State for Clay for President. After their official duties had been performed a committee was appointed to prepare an address to be delivered to Mr. Clay at Ashland. All the members of the college, with many other citizens, accompanied the committee, and Clay met them at his hospitable door to hear the address delivered by Mr. Underwood, the chairman. Clay’s reply was one of the most beautiful of his very many exquisite illustrations of oratory. He said he would not “affect indifference to the personal concern which I had in the political contest just terminated, but unless I am greatly self-deceived, the principal attraction to me of the office of President of the United States arose out of the cherished hope that I might be an humble instrument, in the hands of Providence, to accomplish public good,” and in conclusion he said: “I heartily thank you, sir, for your friendly wishes for my happiness in the retirement which henceforth best becomes me.” Thus closed the memorable Polk-Clay contest of 1844.

THE TAYLOR-CASS-VAN BUREN CONTEST

1848

President Polk was not blessed with a tranquil administration. The annexation of Texas had been approved by Tyler several days before Polk was inaugurated as President, and that at once made strained relations between this country and Mexico. It was an open secret then, and is now a part of the undisputed history of the country, that the election of Polk and the annexation of Texas were regarded by the friends of slavery extension as most important achievements, and that period dated the aggressive action of the South, first to extend and next to nationalize slavery. The annexation of Texas brought in a Slave State and two United States Senators, with the treaty right to add eight new Senators by the subdivision of the State.

This met Calhoun’s complaint that the South could not maintain its equilibrium in the Senate because of the growing West. The purposes of the Southern extensionists, however, went far beyond the annexation of Texas. They meant to have part of Mexico, peaceably if possible, by war if necessary; and the war was deliberately planned and precipitated upon Mexico by the action of the administration. The territory between the Nueces and the Rio Grande rivers was claimed by both Texas and Mexico, but Mexico had exercised uniform jurisdiction. Texas had never served a writ or collected a dollar of revenue on the Rio Grande, and the United States army of occupation, commanded by General Taylor, had not gone south of the Nueces. There was much violent discussion in Mexico over the annexation of Texas, whose independence Mexico disputed, and threats of war were freely made.

The President, without the authority or knowledge of Congress, ordered General Taylor to march to the Rio Grande and maintain it as the southern line of Texas. This precipitated the battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma, in which Taylor defeated the Mexicans. The Democratic Congress then prefaced a bill providing for the national defence by declaring that “we are at war by the act of Mexico.” The purpose of the Mexican war was very freely and severely criticised by a large portion of the people and by many of the ablest men of the nation. The Whigs in Congress were willing to vote for all needed appropriations for the support of the army, but a few members of the House, with the late John Strohm, of Pennsylvania, as the leader, after unsuccessfully struggling to strike out the declaration that “we were at war by the act of Mexico,” refused to vote for the army appropriation; and Corwin, of Ohio, made the ablest speech that ever was delivered in the Senate, with the single exception of Webster’s reply to Hayne, against the Mexican war and against appropriating money for its prosecution.

[Illustration: ZACHARY TAYLOR]

The certainty that the administration would acquire a large portion of Mexican territory for the purpose of creating new Slave States gave dignity and importance to the slavery agitation that it never before attained, and in the fall elections of 1846 the Whigs carried the popular branch of Congress by a decided majority. The repeal of the protective tariff of 1842 and the substitution of the revenue tariff of 1846 contributed considerably to the Democratic disaster, and the war was finally prosecuted by the administration with an adverse House, although willing to furnish all appropriations necessary to support the armies in the field.

After Taylor’s early victories over the Mexicans he invaded Mexican territory and captured Monterey, and these victories made his name a household word throughout the country. Instead of permitting Taylor to proceed with the war that he had so successfully conducted up to that time, the administration decided to practically retire him. General Scott was called to plan an independent campaign from Vera Cruz to the capital of Mexico. It was openly charged that the administration feared the popularity of “Old Zach,” as Taylor was generally called by the people, and that it had little fear of Scott as a Presidential candidate. Scott planned his campaign; was furnished with an independent army, and when he arrived at Vera Cruz he stripped General Taylor of nearly all his regulars, leaving him an army of but little over 4000, most of them volunteers. Santa Anna, whose return to Mexico had been sanctioned by our Government, made himself Military Dictator. He gathered an army of 22,000 of the best Mexican troops and made a rapid movement to strike and crush General Taylor at Buena Vista. The history of that battle is well known. Taylor not only defeated but routed the Mexicans, and thereby made himself the next President of the United States.

General Scott made a most brilliant campaign, fighting repeated battles, and finally captured the City of Mexico, when the administration involved him in bitter controversy, as was easily done with General Scott, and had him tried by a court of his inferiors in the Capitol of the enemy he had conquered. Brilliant as was his military campaign he returned home with little if any increased prestige, and every schoolboy in the land was huzzaing for “Old Zach,” or for “Old Rough and Ready.”

There seems to be poetic justice in the marvellous historical fact that with the large amount of territory conquered from Mexico, and the additional territory afterward purchased by the Gadsden treaty, the South did not gain a single Slave State, and it quickened the issue of slavery that greatly hastened its destruction just when it hoped to attain omnipotence.

It was uncertain after the war of Mexico was inaugurated and the certainty of the acquisition of Mexican territory accepted just when and in what shape the issue of the extension of slavery would be presented. To the surprise of the friends of the administration it came much sooner and in much graver form than they had anticipated. On the 8th of August, 1846, President Polk sent a message to Congress asking for an appropriation to be placed at the President’s disposal to enable him to negotiate an advantageous treaty of peace with the Mexican Government, and a bill was promptly presented to the House appropriating $32,000,000 for immediate use in negotiations with Mexico. There were a number of able and earnest antislavery Democrats in the House, and among them David Wilmot, of Pennsylvania. When the bill, making the large appropriation to obtain peace with Mexico, that obviously meant the acquisition of Southern territory, was presented to the House, repeated conferences were had between the antislavery Democratic leaders, and what has since been known as the “Wilmot Proviso” was originally drawn by Judge Brinkerhoff, then a Democratic Congressman from Ohio, and finally revised and agreed upon, to be offered as an amendment to the Mexican Appropriation bill.

The Speaker was adverse to the antislavery Democrats, and it was uncertain whether any of them could obtain the floor to offer the amendment. The result was that a copy of the proviso was furnished to some half a dozen, with the understanding that each should take advantage of any opportunity to obtain the floor during the consideration of the bill and offer the amendment. The opportunity happened to come to Mr. Wilmot, and he offered the following amendment, that is the original of what is now known as the “Wilmot Proviso.”

“_Provided_, That as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, by virtue of any treaty that may be negotiated between them, and to the use by the Executive of the moneys herein appropriated, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory except for crime whereof the party shall be first duly convicted.”

This proviso came like a bombshell into the ranks of the administrationists, and they were unable to defeat it. It was carried in Committee of the Whole by a vote of 83 to 64, with only 3 Democrats from the Free States opposing it. When the measure was reported to the House, Mr. Tibbatts, of Kentucky, moved that it do lie on the table, and the motion was defeated by 93 to 79. The bill was engrossed for third reading by 85 to 80, and passed finally without further division, with a motion to reconsider laid on the table by vote of 83 to 73. Thus what is now known as the Wilmot Proviso was embodied by the House in the Appropriation bill for negotiating peace with Mexico.

The Wilmot Proviso raised the slavery issue in the most direct form, and it played an important part in the Presidential contest of 1848. It was simply a repetition of the clause prohibiting slavery that was put in the ordinance of 1787 by Thomas Jefferson, when the Northwestern Territory was ceded by Virginia to the United States. It was a very embarrassing issue to many Northern Democrats, and to a few Southern Whigs who inclined to prevent slavery extension. General Cass, who was made the candidate for President in 1848, originally declared himself in favor of the Wilmot Proviso, but he learned a year later that no man could maintain his fellowship with the Democratic party under the Polk administration and support the prohibition of slavery in the Territories.

When the discussion of candidates for the Presidential contest of 1848 became active, General Cass was addressed on the subject of slavery by A. O. P. Nicholson, of Nashville, Tenn., in which he inquired of Cass whether he was in favor of the acquisition of Mexican territory, and what his views were as to the Wilmot Proviso. General Cass answered, December 24, 1847, in which he declared himself in favor of the acquisition of Mexican territory and against the Wilmot Proviso, on which point he said: “I am strongly impressed with the opinion that a great change has been going on in the public mind upon this subject, in my own as well as others, and that doubts are resolving themselves into convictions that the principle it involves should be kept out of the national Legislature and left to the people of the Confederacy in their respective local governments.” But for this declaration Cass would not have been the Democratic candidate for President in 1848, and that declaration also opened the door for the Van Buren bolt that defeated Cass in the great ambition of his life.

In addition to the serious political complications which confronted the Polk administration and threatened the defeat of the Democratic party at its close, the Oregon dispute with England, that had been made one of the chief features of the Polk campaign of 1844, was sensibly adjusted by Secretary of State Buchanan, but in utter disregard of the Democratic declarations and ostentatious professions of the campaign. In that contest the Democrats from every stump declared that the boundary line between Oregon and England must be “54° 40´, or fight”; but when the issue became a question of statesmanship and diplomacy, a treaty was made fixing 49° as the boundary, and thus confessing that the claim of the Democrats in the campaign was made either in ignorance or insincerity.

Another of the troubles that confronted the Democracy was the intense factional dispute in New York between what were known as the Hunkers and the Barnburners. The Hunkers were so called in derision by their enemies as men who always hunkered after office, and the Barnburners were so called by their opponents because it was charged that to correct evils in the party, they were ready to follow the foolish farmer who burnt his barn to rid it of rats.

Silas Wright, who had lost the Vice-Presidency in 1844 by his devotion to Van Buren, and was finally compelled to run for Governor to save the State, suffered a severe defeat in 1846 when a candidate for re-election. That defeat was charged by Van Buren and his friends to the perfidy of the Hunkers. So intense was the bitterness between these factions that they could not agree on delegations to the national convention, and two opposing delegations were chosen, the Barnburners being antislavery Democrats and the Hunkers the regular or pro-slavery Democrats. The national convention met at Baltimore on the 22d of May, 1848, with every State represented, and New York with a double delegation. Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, was made President, and the two-thirds rule was adopted by a vote of 175 to 78. For two days the convention wrangled over the disputing delegations from New York, and after protracted and angry debate a motion was finally passed by 126 to 124 admitting both delegations, each to cast half the vote of the State.

While this was a comparative victory for the Barnburners, they withdrew from the convention, and the Hunker delegation refused to participate in the proceedings. The prominent candidates before the convention for President were Cass and Buchanan, with Cass immensely in the lead and reasonably certain to be nominated before the convention met. He had a large plurality on the 1st ballot, but did not reach the requisite two-thirds vote until the 4th, as is shown by the following table, giving the ballots in detail:

════════════════════════╤════════╤═════════╤════════╤═════════ │ First. │ Second. │ Third. │ Fourth. ────────────────────────┼────────┼─────────┼────────┼───────── Necessary to a choice │ 168 │ 168 │ 169 │ 169 Lewis Cass, Mich. │ 125 │ 133 │ 156 │ 179 James Buchanan, Penn. │ 55 │ 54 │ 40 │ 33 Levi Woodbury, N. H. │ 53 │ 56 │ 53 │ 38 George M. Dallas, Penn. │ 3 │ 3 │ ―― │ ―― W. J. Worth, Tenn. │ 6 │ 6 │ 5 │ 1 John C. Calhoun, S. C. │ 9 │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― W. O. Butler, Ky. │ ―― │ ―― │ ―― │ 3 ════════════════════════╧════════╧═════════╧════════╧══════════

The convention adjourned after the nomination of Cass to meet in evening session to select a candidate for Vice-President, and without any preliminaries the ballot was had as follows: