Part #1: A Horse
Excerpted from “No Agreements With Hell: The American Abolitionist Movement Reconsidered.”
- In contrast with strident firebrands such as Garrison and his ilk, who favored active resistance to slavery and denounced the idea of working through the political system to achieve gradual emancipation, the so-called “conservative abolitionists” attempted to build support for their platform via the medium of electoral politics. Their chosen vehicle was the Liberty Party, established at a convention in Albany in 1840; the party’s nominee for that year’s presidential election was the publisher and lawyer James G. Birney, executive director of the American Anti-Slavery Society. The Liberty Party’s first foray into the murky world of presidential politics proved to be signally unsuccessful, as the party’s ticket of Birney and Pennsylvania journalist Thomas Earle won only 6800 votes - roughly .3% - in the 1840 election, won by the Whig nominee William Henry Harrison. Harrison’s time in office proved to be short; he succumbed to pneumonia scarcely a month after his inauguration and was succeeded by John Tyler. Undaunted by their initial failure, the Liberty Party held a second convention in Buffalo in August of 1843, at which time they chose Birney again to lead the party in the election of 1844. Yet the divisions within the party and within the abolitionist movement in general were laid bare when Birney suffered a crippling fall from his horse in January of 1844, forcing him to remove himself not only from the presidential race but also from public life altogether; partially paralyzed by the fall, he lived as an invalid until his death in 1856 (1). A rump gathering of the Liberty Party was hastily convened in New York City in March, but the attendees were unable to come to consensus on a replacement candidate for Birney. In the end, the Liberty Party failed to field a candidate in 1844, and the debate between the conservative abolitionists and the Garrisonian abolitionists would only intensify in years to come.
Excerpted from “Almanac of American Presidential Elections.”
- The tumultuous presidency of John Tyler, elected on a Whig ticket but unceremoniously booted out of the party in 1841, led to an election in which there was, in practice, no incumbent in the White House. Tyler, famously described by Herman Melville as “the Whig who wasn’t,” attempted to create a third party around his person through which he could win re-election, but found little success. Yet his attempts to find a winning issue did succeed in defining the presidential race, as his support for the annexation of Texas led to that issue emerging to the fore in the 1844 campaign for the nation’s highest office. The nomination of the Whig Party went to Henry Clay, Senator from Kentucky, two times a presidential nominee, and one of the party’s elder statesmen, with little debate or rancor; he was chosen on the first ballot. The same could not be said for the other major party, the Democrats, who convened in Baltimore in May. The former President Martin Van Buren entered the convention as the frontrunner, but it soon became apparent that he could not secure votes from the necessary two-thirds of delegates due to his opposition to annexation. After eight ballots in which neither Van Buren nor his rival, former Secretary of War and Minister to France Lewis Cass, appeared close to securing a two-thirds majority, the nomination went on the ninth ballot to James Polk, former Speaker of the House of Representatives and Governor of Tennessee. Polk’s surprise victory is generally considered by modern historians to be the first instance of a so-called “dark horse” candidate winning the nomination of a major party.
The vigorous campaign between Clay and Polk largely hinged on Texas as well as more traditional economic issues, including Clay’s proposals for a national bank and a protective tariff, both of which were opposed by the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, on the issue of annexation, Polk was a full-throated expansionist, while Clay was opposed on the grounds that it would lead to war with Mexico. Amidst the usual partisan mudslinging and shenanigans, voters went to the polls in November, and the result was the closest election in American history that was not thrown to the House of Representatives. Despite Polk’s victory in the popular vote - he won 1,341,915 votes to Clay’s 1,337,265 - Clay eked out a victory in the Electoral College due to his narrow win in New York, where he won by 1,214 votes out of more than 482,000 cast (2). Clay won 141 electoral votes to Polk’s 140 and thus, the presidency.
Excerpted from “Inaugural Addresses of US Presidents - Henry Clay, 1845.”
- War, pestilence, and famine, by the common consent of mankind, are the three greatest calamities which can befall our species; and war, as the most direful, justly stands foremost and in front. Pestilence and famine, no doubt for wise though inscrutable purposes, are inflictions of Providence, to which it is our duty, therefore, to bow with obedience, humble submission and resignation. Their duration is not long, and their ravages are limited. War is the voluntary work of our own hands, and whatever reproaches it deserves should be directed to ourselves. War unhinges society, disturbs its peaceful and regular industry, and scatters poisonous seeds of disease and immorality, which continue to germinate and diffuse their baneful influence long after it has ceased. Dazzling by its glitter, pomp and pageantry, it begets a spirit of wild adventure and romantic enterprise, and often disqualifies those who embark upon it, after their return from the bloody fields of battle, from engaging in the industrious and peaceful vocations of life. War is, by its very nature, a great calamity, to be avoided, if possible, in favor of honorable peace as the wisest and truest policy of this country.
Annexation of Texas and war with Mexico are identical . . .
Excerpted from “What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1844-1879.”
- The momentum for annexation of Texas all but disappeared with the narrow election of Clay to the Presidency in 1844. Though the outgoing President Tyler attempted to push a joint resolution of annexation through Congress in the lame-duck period before Clay’s inauguration, the bill ultimately failed even to reach the floor. Congressional Whigs lined up unanimously against it, and after the election of the anti-annexationist Clay, Democrats were wary of supporting a venture that seemed to many tantamount to spitting in the face of public opinion. John Calhoun expressed the opinion of many Democrats when he wrote, “Only a fool keeps hunting after the fox is dead.” His focus, along with other supporters of annexation, shifted from trying to make Texas a state of the US to ensuring that whatever state emerged was slave and not free.
A lengthy diplomatic dance ensued, as representatives from the USA, Great Britain and France all attempted to persuade Mexico to relinquish its claims upon Texas and to submit to binding arbitration to establish the borders of the republic. Behind the scenes, French, British and American diplomats argued amongst themselves - would Texas be slave or free? (3)
NOTES
(1) Something like this happened to Birney in real life during the summer of 1845. Lesson: horses are bad.
(2) I’m not going to get into the numbers too deeply here, because that’s boring. The electoral map looks the same save that Clay wins New York.
(3) SPOILER ALERT: Slave.
*So, this should be fun. I’m chiefly interested in the knock-on effects of no annexation on American domestic politics, especially relating to the two-party system as it existed at that time and the slavery issue. The Texas thing will take some time to play out, so I’ll probably talk about tariffs and banks and rivers in the next update. Thanks for reading.
Excerpted from “No Agreements With Hell: The American Abolitionist Movement Reconsidered.”
- In contrast with strident firebrands such as Garrison and his ilk, who favored active resistance to slavery and denounced the idea of working through the political system to achieve gradual emancipation, the so-called “conservative abolitionists” attempted to build support for their platform via the medium of electoral politics. Their chosen vehicle was the Liberty Party, established at a convention in Albany in 1840; the party’s nominee for that year’s presidential election was the publisher and lawyer James G. Birney, executive director of the American Anti-Slavery Society. The Liberty Party’s first foray into the murky world of presidential politics proved to be signally unsuccessful, as the party’s ticket of Birney and Pennsylvania journalist Thomas Earle won only 6800 votes - roughly .3% - in the 1840 election, won by the Whig nominee William Henry Harrison. Harrison’s time in office proved to be short; he succumbed to pneumonia scarcely a month after his inauguration and was succeeded by John Tyler. Undaunted by their initial failure, the Liberty Party held a second convention in Buffalo in August of 1843, at which time they chose Birney again to lead the party in the election of 1844. Yet the divisions within the party and within the abolitionist movement in general were laid bare when Birney suffered a crippling fall from his horse in January of 1844, forcing him to remove himself not only from the presidential race but also from public life altogether; partially paralyzed by the fall, he lived as an invalid until his death in 1856 (1). A rump gathering of the Liberty Party was hastily convened in New York City in March, but the attendees were unable to come to consensus on a replacement candidate for Birney. In the end, the Liberty Party failed to field a candidate in 1844, and the debate between the conservative abolitionists and the Garrisonian abolitionists would only intensify in years to come.
Excerpted from “Almanac of American Presidential Elections.”
- The tumultuous presidency of John Tyler, elected on a Whig ticket but unceremoniously booted out of the party in 1841, led to an election in which there was, in practice, no incumbent in the White House. Tyler, famously described by Herman Melville as “the Whig who wasn’t,” attempted to create a third party around his person through which he could win re-election, but found little success. Yet his attempts to find a winning issue did succeed in defining the presidential race, as his support for the annexation of Texas led to that issue emerging to the fore in the 1844 campaign for the nation’s highest office. The nomination of the Whig Party went to Henry Clay, Senator from Kentucky, two times a presidential nominee, and one of the party’s elder statesmen, with little debate or rancor; he was chosen on the first ballot. The same could not be said for the other major party, the Democrats, who convened in Baltimore in May. The former President Martin Van Buren entered the convention as the frontrunner, but it soon became apparent that he could not secure votes from the necessary two-thirds of delegates due to his opposition to annexation. After eight ballots in which neither Van Buren nor his rival, former Secretary of War and Minister to France Lewis Cass, appeared close to securing a two-thirds majority, the nomination went on the ninth ballot to James Polk, former Speaker of the House of Representatives and Governor of Tennessee. Polk’s surprise victory is generally considered by modern historians to be the first instance of a so-called “dark horse” candidate winning the nomination of a major party.
The vigorous campaign between Clay and Polk largely hinged on Texas as well as more traditional economic issues, including Clay’s proposals for a national bank and a protective tariff, both of which were opposed by the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, on the issue of annexation, Polk was a full-throated expansionist, while Clay was opposed on the grounds that it would lead to war with Mexico. Amidst the usual partisan mudslinging and shenanigans, voters went to the polls in November, and the result was the closest election in American history that was not thrown to the House of Representatives. Despite Polk’s victory in the popular vote - he won 1,341,915 votes to Clay’s 1,337,265 - Clay eked out a victory in the Electoral College due to his narrow win in New York, where he won by 1,214 votes out of more than 482,000 cast (2). Clay won 141 electoral votes to Polk’s 140 and thus, the presidency.
Excerpted from “Inaugural Addresses of US Presidents - Henry Clay, 1845.”
- War, pestilence, and famine, by the common consent of mankind, are the three greatest calamities which can befall our species; and war, as the most direful, justly stands foremost and in front. Pestilence and famine, no doubt for wise though inscrutable purposes, are inflictions of Providence, to which it is our duty, therefore, to bow with obedience, humble submission and resignation. Their duration is not long, and their ravages are limited. War is the voluntary work of our own hands, and whatever reproaches it deserves should be directed to ourselves. War unhinges society, disturbs its peaceful and regular industry, and scatters poisonous seeds of disease and immorality, which continue to germinate and diffuse their baneful influence long after it has ceased. Dazzling by its glitter, pomp and pageantry, it begets a spirit of wild adventure and romantic enterprise, and often disqualifies those who embark upon it, after their return from the bloody fields of battle, from engaging in the industrious and peaceful vocations of life. War is, by its very nature, a great calamity, to be avoided, if possible, in favor of honorable peace as the wisest and truest policy of this country.
Annexation of Texas and war with Mexico are identical . . .
Excerpted from “What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1844-1879.”
- The momentum for annexation of Texas all but disappeared with the narrow election of Clay to the Presidency in 1844. Though the outgoing President Tyler attempted to push a joint resolution of annexation through Congress in the lame-duck period before Clay’s inauguration, the bill ultimately failed even to reach the floor. Congressional Whigs lined up unanimously against it, and after the election of the anti-annexationist Clay, Democrats were wary of supporting a venture that seemed to many tantamount to spitting in the face of public opinion. John Calhoun expressed the opinion of many Democrats when he wrote, “Only a fool keeps hunting after the fox is dead.” His focus, along with other supporters of annexation, shifted from trying to make Texas a state of the US to ensuring that whatever state emerged was slave and not free.
A lengthy diplomatic dance ensued, as representatives from the USA, Great Britain and France all attempted to persuade Mexico to relinquish its claims upon Texas and to submit to binding arbitration to establish the borders of the republic. Behind the scenes, French, British and American diplomats argued amongst themselves - would Texas be slave or free? (3)
NOTES
(1) Something like this happened to Birney in real life during the summer of 1845. Lesson: horses are bad.
(2) I’m not going to get into the numbers too deeply here, because that’s boring. The electoral map looks the same save that Clay wins New York.
(3) SPOILER ALERT: Slave.
*So, this should be fun. I’m chiefly interested in the knock-on effects of no annexation on American domestic politics, especially relating to the two-party system as it existed at that time and the slavery issue. The Texas thing will take some time to play out, so I’ll probably talk about tariffs and banks and rivers in the next update. Thanks for reading.