The Little Magician's Spell

"CHAIR: By a margin of 122 to 144 the motion to reinstate the requirement that a candidate receive a two thirds majority to be nominated has been defeated.

ASSORTED BOOS

ASSORTED CHEERS"

- Transcript from the 1844 Democratic Convention.

---

Despite concerns over Martin Van Buren's positions on the annexation request pending from Texas the assorted forces opposed to the former President's nomination were unable to stop the Presidents majority from pushing the Little Magician into the nomination once more. A last ditch effort by Senators James Buchanan of Pennsylvania and Lewis Cass of Michigan to require a 2/3rds majority, and thus southern support, for the nomination failed. The first ballot proved the last one.

FORMER PRESIDENT MARTIN VAN BUREN OF NEW YORK - 149

SENATOR LEWIS CASS OF MICHIGAN - 83

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT RICHARD MENTOR JOHNSON - 21

SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN C CALHOUN OF SOUTH CAROLINA - 6

SENATOR JAMES BUCHANAN OF PENNSYLVANIA - 4

SENATOR LEVI WOODBURY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE - 2

REAR ADMIRAL CHARLES STEWART OF PENNSYLVANIA - 1

Richard Mentor Johnson had been Van Buren's President, but was unacceptable to the south and so was out of the question. Steve M. Dallas was a conservative option for the delegates but in the end they settled on the former Speaker of the House and another Jackson protege. James K Polk, also known as "Young Hickory". Polk was a more aggressive figure who also tied the south more closely to Van Buren, something the candidate desperately needed. "Old Kinderhook and Young Hickory, Take a Look and avoid Whig Trickery" sang one ditty about the ticket. The platform of the convention aroused fury from the south for its failure to demand the annexation of Texas and a vague pronouncement "of preserving sectional balance and unity" that sounded a lot like a rejection. Despite the fact that he had been elected as a Whig and that he was horrendously unpopular the annexationist "Democratic-Republican" candidate, President John Tyler seemed to be the best choice for many southern Democrats.

The Whig party felt good going into the election of 1844, the Democrats were divided between John Tyler and "Martin Van Ruin". Meanwhile the Whigs nominated the capable, experienced Henry Clay along with Theodore Frelinghuysen of New Jersey. They seemed united and ready to take the nation by storm. However tension broiled beneath the surface, Clay's love of drink and gambling was brought up again. The ambivalent nature he seemed to have towards annexation hurt his support with both sides of the issue.

The race, increasingly becoming three sided as Tyler siphoned pro-Texas votes from both sides, heated up as the election days grew nearer. The Whig's hit on Van Buren's disastrous economic history, reviving the idea of "Martin Van Ruin" and attacking him as an elitist machine politician. Clay's various issues were brought up again, including the corrupt bargain of 1824. His running mate Frelinghuysen was a nativist which was dragged up to hurt the Whigs in immigrant areas. Debate raged over the idea of a National Bank, Clay fervently supported it, while Van Buren favored an independent treasury system for the nation.

As the campaign progressed it became readily apparent that Van Buren, despite the vagueness of his platform, was firmly against the annexation of Texas. This helped him in the north, where his tariff position proved unpopular, and took votes from third parties that might otherwise have arisen to prominence in the north. However the weaker stance on Texas Van Buren possessed hurt him badly in the south as voters turned towards John Tyler if they could not stomach Henry Clay. Opinion polls did not exist, but if they had they would have shown a three way toss up race across the south. Tyler gained momentum when South Carolina's legislature selected electors favorable to him, not Van Buren. However Van Buren was gaining ground in the anti-annexationist north.

No one knew how it would end until the last votes came in……
 
In an old soc.history.what-if post, I expressed some doubts about Van Buren's electability, given the Whig-created image of him as an aristocratic dandy who was unmoved by the people's sufferings following the Panic of 1837:

***

"I agree that the North, not the South, was the key to the election of
1844--Clay could have carried Louisiana and Georgia and would still have
lost, whereas if he had carried New York and *either* Indiana or
Pennsylvania, he could have lost Tennessee and would still have won...

"However, I am not certain that Van Buren would have been as strong as Polk
even in the North. Polk was a relative unknown but that may be better
than being known and disliked ("Little Magician" and "Red Fox of
Kinderhook" aren't terribly complimentary nicknames). Apart from other
reasons for dislike of Van Buren, people associated him *directly* with
the hard times following the Panic of 1837...That
hurts more than simply to have your party associated with such times in a
general way. As against that, there is of course the fact that the absence
of Texas as an issue will help the Democrats in some though not
necessarily all northern states--not all, because in the Northwest there
was some support for Texas when combined with Oregon as part of a broad
program of expansion, the Democrats explaining that the Evil British were
trying to block America's expansion in both the northwest and southwest.
And there were farmers in the Northwest as well as in the South who wanted
cheap land in Texas. So the absence of the Texas issue may actually help
the Whigs in Illinois (which admittedly they were not going to carry in
any event) and perhaps even in Indiana. Maybe Van Buren (compared with
Jackson or Polk) was just too peaceable for the Northwest."

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/uWZS0D1ShoA/tfCeyk4c1V0J
 
genusmap.php

In the end Southern Democrats deserted Van Buren in droves, mainly for John Tyler, state organizers oftern backing "Tyler and Texas" over the man who had created the party. The Deep South Swung in Tyler's favor, though Clay was close enough in Georgia and Louisiana to pick up the votes there, both Virginia and Missouri also fell into Whig hands. But Van Buren was able to hold together the Northern Democrats effectively, managing to win New York and New Jersey. He barely took out wins in Ohio and Michigan. Accusations of vote rigging ran high in Ohio, which might've delivered victory to Clay. But the results were final, it was going to the House of Representatives.​
 
Last edited:

Y.H.

In an old soc.history.what-if post, I expressed some doubts about Van Buren's electability, given the Whig-created image of him as an aristocratic dandy who was unmoved by the people's sufferings following the Panic of 1837:

***

"I agree that the North, not the South, was the key to the election of
1844--Clay could have carried Louisiana and Georgia and would still have
lost, whereas if he had carried New York and *either* Indiana or
Pennsylvania, he could have lost Tennessee and would still have won...

"However, I am not certain that Van Buren would have been as strong as Polk
even in the North. Polk was a relative unknown but that may be better
than being known and disliked ("Little Magician" and "Red Fox of
Kinderhook" aren't terribly complimentary nicknames). Apart from other
reasons for dislike of Van Buren, people associated him *directly* with
the hard times following the Panic of 1837...That
hurts more than simply to have your party associated with such times in a
general way. As against that, there is of course the fact that the absence
of Texas as an issue will help the Democrats in some though not
necessarily all northern states--not all, because in the Northwest there
was some support for Texas when combined with Oregon as part of a broad
program of expansion, the Democrats explaining that the Evil British were
trying to block America's expansion in both the northwest and southwest.
And there were farmers in the Northwest as well as in the South who wanted
cheap land in Texas. So the absence of the Texas issue may actually help
the Whigs in Illinois (which admittedly they were not going to carry in
any event) and perhaps even in Indiana. Maybe Van Buren (compared with
Jackson or Polk) was just too peaceable for the Northwest."

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/uWZS0D1ShoA/tfCeyk4c1V0J

Van Buren's victories are narrow in the west, but Tyler's support is weakened there relative to the south.
 
Top