4. Apportionment and Annexation
4. Apportionment and Annexation
“The flurry of legislation enacted by President Clay and the Whigs in 1841-1842 was designed to quickly alleviate America’s economic woes. The national bank, coupled with new spending on internal improvements and a law allowing individuals to voluntarily declare bankruptcy, had brought a surge of investment into the economy. On the campaign trail in 1840, the Whigs had promised “relief and reform,” and by and large they had delivered. The number of bank closures and farm bankruptcies had dwindled since Clay’s inauguration. Elections in 1841 had seen the Whigs successfully defend state legislatures and governorships from Maine to Mississippi, a clear sign that voters were, on the whole, satisfied with the country’s direction.
In late 1842, elections to the House of Representatives and state legislatures were held. The Apportionment Act of 1842 reduced the size of the House from 242 to 223, with all states required to draw single-member Congressional districts. Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, and New Hampshire had attempted to skirt the ruling, but the Whig congress refused to seat representatives elected on general tickets.
Despite the improving economy, rural voters favored Democrats and rejected Whig economic policies. This was somewhat counterbalanced by Whig gains in pro-tariff states like Pennsylvania, but the Democrats gained a total of 17 seats. The Whigs lost 28 seats [1] due to eliminated districts as well as Democratic gains, leaving them with a slim majority of 114. In the Senate, the Whigs held a reduced majority of 27, losing three seats. While Clay would be unable to expand significantly upon his accomplishments, the results were hardly a stinging rebuke – the Whigs had maintained their governing trifecta, if narrowly.
For his part, Clay was disappointed by the losses in the House, but was relieved that the Whigs had held both chambers. He also prided himself on having implemented the bulk of his agenda, opining that “although majorities are fickle things, canals and banks endure.”"
-From THE CLAY ERA: TRANSFORMING A NATION by Edmund Sellers, published 2017
“The Apportionment Act of 1842’s prohibition of multi-member districts and statewide general tickets sparked controversy in 1843, when the new Congress convened. The Whigs had barely held their House majority. Four states – Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, and New Hampshire – defied the Apportionment Act and held congressional elections on general tickets, with all four states sending all-Democratic delegations to Washington.
A number of Whigs, led by Massachusetts Congressman (and former President) John Quincy Adams, objected to seating the 22 general-ticket Democrats. “The question of the admission of the members from four States, elected by general ticket, must be discussed,” Adams stated during his bid to open debate on the issue at Congress’s opening session. He then submitted a petition, signed by 50 congressmen, to prevent the 22 representatives in question from being seated. With the support of Speaker White, the Whigs decided to task the Committee on Elections with investigating the matter. The Whig majority view would be presented by Garrett Davis of Kentucky, the Democratic minority view by freshman Stephen Douglas.
While Douglas denounced the Apportionment Act as unconstitutional and called for the seating of the representatives, Davis presented a slippery slope: if states could ignore the Apportionment Act, then that would surely embolden states to nullify other federal laws, and what would that mean for the Union?
When the report was presented to the rest of the House, fierce debate ensued. Democrats denounced the effort to deny the 22 their seats as tyranny, with Douglas emerging as their leading defender. However, the Whigs held the majority, and, on February 14, 1844, the House voted not to seat the 22 representatives until the four states they hailed from implemented single-member districts [2].
Cowed by the stern response from Congress, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, and New Hampshire obeyed the Apportionment Act. In a series of special elections held over the spring and summer of 1844, Democrats held 16 of the disputed seats, while Whigs flipped 6, increasing their majority to a more comfortable 120. The struggle was an important victory for voting rights in the United States, but the Whig Party would not show such a strong commitment during Abolition…”
--From FRANCHISE: THE STRUGGLE FOR VOTING RIGHTS by Thaddeus Flagg, published 2021
“With President Clay firmly opposed to annexing Texas, Sam Houston and the Texian government decided to explore other avenues. Houston’s ultimate goal was for the United States to admit Texas as a state, but until Clay reversed course or a more expansionist President was elected, he decided to put pressure on the American government to open negotiations. In 1843, Houston entered into negotiations with Great Britain and even Mexico to force Clay’s hand [3]. He ostentatiously withdrew his offer of annexation and his ambassador to the United States, Isaac Van Zandt, hinted that Britain and France would mediate peace with Mexico, giving Texas powerful foreign benefactors and removing the need for annexation by the United States.
News that Texas might seek an accommodation with Great Britain proved worrying to many Americans. Britain was still loathed and feared by them, memories of the Revolution and the War of 1812 still fresh. Furthermore, the United States was at that point embroiled in boundary disputes with British Canada in northern Maine and the Pacific Northwest. For a neighboring country to form an alliance with the British was therefore unthinkable. For southerners, the prospect was made worse by Britain’s firm opposition to slavery. If Texas was placed in the British sphere, the thinking went, then Britain could easily exert pressure on the United States to abolish slavery and President Clay refused to budge, but the prospect of an Anglo-Texas alliance sparked dissent in Congress. Senator John Calhoun, a pro-slavery firebrand, claimed that British designs on Texas would have the ultimate effect of ending American slavery: “[the British] are determined to abolish slavery throughout the continent… the effects would be disastrous.” As a protective move, he called for the annexation of Texas. Of course, Britain had no plans to force Texas or the United States to abolish slavery, as Lord Aberdeen, the British foreign secretary, assured Edward Everett, the U.S. minister to the United Kingdom.
Despite these assurances, a bipartisan alliance of southern Democrats and Whigs continued to raise concerns over Texas. Clay forcefully insisted in his 1844 message to Congress that “the annexation of Texas would do more to disturb the tranquility of the Union than enhance it… the expansion of our borders can only exacerbate sectional tensions.” With Clay firmly opposed, at least for the time being, the matter of Texian annexation was shelved, though it would certainly play a large role in the 1844 election.”
-From EXPANDING FRONTIERS by John Freeman, published 1989
“The Texas quagmire was not the only foreign policy dilemma that presented itself during Clay’s first term. The United States had two long-running border disputes with Great Britain – in the northeast and in the Oregon Country. Numerous efforts had been made in the past to resolve them, but none had been successful. Clay dispatched his Secretary of State, John M. Clayton, and Minister to the United Kingdom, Edward Everett, to settle the matters. While Clayton quickly became bogged down in long negotiations over Oregon, Everett was tasked with resolving the northeast dispute.
The 1783 Treaty of Paris had established the New York/Vermont-Canadian border as the 45th parallel, but the survey line used in the treaty was inaccurate, and an American fort was constructed north of the actual 45th parallel. As a result, the United States wanted to readjust the border to be along the original, inaccurate survey line rather than the actual parallel. Britain acquiesced to this, and also to a compromise border in Maine. In 1839, northern Maine was the site of confrontations between lumberjacks over logging rights, and the new Maine state government heavily lobbied the federal government to push for a favorable resolution to the dispute. Ultimately, a line roughly in between the American and British extremes was outlined by Everett and his British counterparts, which also ceded the disputed Indian Stream to the United States. The Everett-Ashburton Treaty also guaranteed both the United States and Great Britain use of Great Lakes, established the location of the border at the 49th parallel in the American west until the Rockies, where the still-disputed Oregon Country lay. [4]
Secretary Clayton, meanwhile, fared little better than his predecessors at resolving the border in Oregon…”
-From THE GREAT GAMES: A HISTORY OF DIPLOMACY by Kathleen Michaels, published 1996
[1] Many OTL Whig losses are reversed due to a more unified party and a stronger economic recovery.
[2] OTL, the Democrats held the majority, and they allowed the 22 representatives to take their seats over the objections of Adams and his allies.
[3] OTL, Houston made such a move in order to pressure the Senate to ratify Tyler’s annexation treaty.
[4] All OTL.
“The flurry of legislation enacted by President Clay and the Whigs in 1841-1842 was designed to quickly alleviate America’s economic woes. The national bank, coupled with new spending on internal improvements and a law allowing individuals to voluntarily declare bankruptcy, had brought a surge of investment into the economy. On the campaign trail in 1840, the Whigs had promised “relief and reform,” and by and large they had delivered. The number of bank closures and farm bankruptcies had dwindled since Clay’s inauguration. Elections in 1841 had seen the Whigs successfully defend state legislatures and governorships from Maine to Mississippi, a clear sign that voters were, on the whole, satisfied with the country’s direction.
In late 1842, elections to the House of Representatives and state legislatures were held. The Apportionment Act of 1842 reduced the size of the House from 242 to 223, with all states required to draw single-member Congressional districts. Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, and New Hampshire had attempted to skirt the ruling, but the Whig congress refused to seat representatives elected on general tickets.
Despite the improving economy, rural voters favored Democrats and rejected Whig economic policies. This was somewhat counterbalanced by Whig gains in pro-tariff states like Pennsylvania, but the Democrats gained a total of 17 seats. The Whigs lost 28 seats [1] due to eliminated districts as well as Democratic gains, leaving them with a slim majority of 114. In the Senate, the Whigs held a reduced majority of 27, losing three seats. While Clay would be unable to expand significantly upon his accomplishments, the results were hardly a stinging rebuke – the Whigs had maintained their governing trifecta, if narrowly.
For his part, Clay was disappointed by the losses in the House, but was relieved that the Whigs had held both chambers. He also prided himself on having implemented the bulk of his agenda, opining that “although majorities are fickle things, canals and banks endure.”"
-From THE CLAY ERA: TRANSFORMING A NATION by Edmund Sellers, published 2017
“The Apportionment Act of 1842’s prohibition of multi-member districts and statewide general tickets sparked controversy in 1843, when the new Congress convened. The Whigs had barely held their House majority. Four states – Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, and New Hampshire – defied the Apportionment Act and held congressional elections on general tickets, with all four states sending all-Democratic delegations to Washington.
A number of Whigs, led by Massachusetts Congressman (and former President) John Quincy Adams, objected to seating the 22 general-ticket Democrats. “The question of the admission of the members from four States, elected by general ticket, must be discussed,” Adams stated during his bid to open debate on the issue at Congress’s opening session. He then submitted a petition, signed by 50 congressmen, to prevent the 22 representatives in question from being seated. With the support of Speaker White, the Whigs decided to task the Committee on Elections with investigating the matter. The Whig majority view would be presented by Garrett Davis of Kentucky, the Democratic minority view by freshman Stephen Douglas.
While Douglas denounced the Apportionment Act as unconstitutional and called for the seating of the representatives, Davis presented a slippery slope: if states could ignore the Apportionment Act, then that would surely embolden states to nullify other federal laws, and what would that mean for the Union?
When the report was presented to the rest of the House, fierce debate ensued. Democrats denounced the effort to deny the 22 their seats as tyranny, with Douglas emerging as their leading defender. However, the Whigs held the majority, and, on February 14, 1844, the House voted not to seat the 22 representatives until the four states they hailed from implemented single-member districts [2].
Cowed by the stern response from Congress, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, and New Hampshire obeyed the Apportionment Act. In a series of special elections held over the spring and summer of 1844, Democrats held 16 of the disputed seats, while Whigs flipped 6, increasing their majority to a more comfortable 120. The struggle was an important victory for voting rights in the United States, but the Whig Party would not show such a strong commitment during Abolition…”
--From FRANCHISE: THE STRUGGLE FOR VOTING RIGHTS by Thaddeus Flagg, published 2021
“With President Clay firmly opposed to annexing Texas, Sam Houston and the Texian government decided to explore other avenues. Houston’s ultimate goal was for the United States to admit Texas as a state, but until Clay reversed course or a more expansionist President was elected, he decided to put pressure on the American government to open negotiations. In 1843, Houston entered into negotiations with Great Britain and even Mexico to force Clay’s hand [3]. He ostentatiously withdrew his offer of annexation and his ambassador to the United States, Isaac Van Zandt, hinted that Britain and France would mediate peace with Mexico, giving Texas powerful foreign benefactors and removing the need for annexation by the United States.
News that Texas might seek an accommodation with Great Britain proved worrying to many Americans. Britain was still loathed and feared by them, memories of the Revolution and the War of 1812 still fresh. Furthermore, the United States was at that point embroiled in boundary disputes with British Canada in northern Maine and the Pacific Northwest. For a neighboring country to form an alliance with the British was therefore unthinkable. For southerners, the prospect was made worse by Britain’s firm opposition to slavery. If Texas was placed in the British sphere, the thinking went, then Britain could easily exert pressure on the United States to abolish slavery and President Clay refused to budge, but the prospect of an Anglo-Texas alliance sparked dissent in Congress. Senator John Calhoun, a pro-slavery firebrand, claimed that British designs on Texas would have the ultimate effect of ending American slavery: “[the British] are determined to abolish slavery throughout the continent… the effects would be disastrous.” As a protective move, he called for the annexation of Texas. Of course, Britain had no plans to force Texas or the United States to abolish slavery, as Lord Aberdeen, the British foreign secretary, assured Edward Everett, the U.S. minister to the United Kingdom.
Despite these assurances, a bipartisan alliance of southern Democrats and Whigs continued to raise concerns over Texas. Clay forcefully insisted in his 1844 message to Congress that “the annexation of Texas would do more to disturb the tranquility of the Union than enhance it… the expansion of our borders can only exacerbate sectional tensions.” With Clay firmly opposed, at least for the time being, the matter of Texian annexation was shelved, though it would certainly play a large role in the 1844 election.”
-From EXPANDING FRONTIERS by John Freeman, published 1989
“The Texas quagmire was not the only foreign policy dilemma that presented itself during Clay’s first term. The United States had two long-running border disputes with Great Britain – in the northeast and in the Oregon Country. Numerous efforts had been made in the past to resolve them, but none had been successful. Clay dispatched his Secretary of State, John M. Clayton, and Minister to the United Kingdom, Edward Everett, to settle the matters. While Clayton quickly became bogged down in long negotiations over Oregon, Everett was tasked with resolving the northeast dispute.
The 1783 Treaty of Paris had established the New York/Vermont-Canadian border as the 45th parallel, but the survey line used in the treaty was inaccurate, and an American fort was constructed north of the actual 45th parallel. As a result, the United States wanted to readjust the border to be along the original, inaccurate survey line rather than the actual parallel. Britain acquiesced to this, and also to a compromise border in Maine. In 1839, northern Maine was the site of confrontations between lumberjacks over logging rights, and the new Maine state government heavily lobbied the federal government to push for a favorable resolution to the dispute. Ultimately, a line roughly in between the American and British extremes was outlined by Everett and his British counterparts, which also ceded the disputed Indian Stream to the United States. The Everett-Ashburton Treaty also guaranteed both the United States and Great Britain use of Great Lakes, established the location of the border at the 49th parallel in the American west until the Rockies, where the still-disputed Oregon Country lay. [4]
Secretary Clayton, meanwhile, fared little better than his predecessors at resolving the border in Oregon…”
-From THE GREAT GAMES: A HISTORY OF DIPLOMACY by Kathleen Michaels, published 1996
[1] Many OTL Whig losses are reversed due to a more unified party and a stronger economic recovery.
[2] OTL, the Democrats held the majority, and they allowed the 22 representatives to take their seats over the objections of Adams and his allies.
[3] OTL, Houston made such a move in order to pressure the Senate to ratify Tyler’s annexation treaty.
[4] All OTL.
