CHAPTER VII.

THE MEXICAN WAR AND THE FREE-SOIL PARTY.

THE strength of the Daily Republican from the first

THE

lay largely in its political discussions. While as a newspaper it was still insignificant, it often handled the political questions of the day with a breadth, intelligence, and vigor which few journals then or afterward surpassed. The most effective of these articles, during this early period, were undoubtedly from the pen of Mr. Calhoun. But the general attitude of the Republican upon the national questions of the time was determined by the Bowleses; others might influence, but never dictate.

The beginning of the Daily Republican coincided with the appearance of the Slavery question as a chief factor in American politics. In 1844, the birth-year of the paper, a treaty for the annexation of Texas was signed by President Tyler, and a joint resolution approving the treaty was introduced in Congress. This thrust upon the nation the question of an aggressive policy toward Mexico, involving the probability of war and the annexation of more slave territory. The Whig party as a whole was opposed to the acquisition, partly on antislavery grounds, partly as the traditional champion of a moderate foreign policy. Its presidential candidate, Henry Clay, was supposed to be hostile to the annexation, but his position was somewhat ambiguous, and he lost

the confidence of Seward and the New York Whigs. The Democrats and their candidate Polk were for immediate annexation, with the resulting increase of slave territory, and at the price of war if necessary. The "Liberty party "-organized in 1840 by those of the Abolitionists who believed in political action for the gradual suppression of slavery, and who at that time separated from Garrison and his immediate associates-nominated James G. Birney for President. Their action drew enough votes from Clay to give the presidency to Polk.

During this period the Republican was anti-slavery and Whig. In its first number, March 29, 1844, an article was quoted in regard to Mr. Clay,- already recognized as the coming presidential candidate of the Whigs,representing him as a champion of protection, internal improvements, close commercial alliances with Mexico and the South American republics, and "a system of American policy." The first long editorial, April 23, denounces the annexation of Texas, just brought before Congress for its confirmation, and makes a vigorous and stirring appeal to the North to oppose it. Through the ensuing campaign the Republican heartily supported Clay, and urged as the leading issues the defeat of annexation and the maintenance of a high tariff.

The election of Polk was a popular sanction of the annexation of Texas, which was accordingly consummated by President Tyler's administration as its closing act. Texas had recently won its independence from Mexico. It had been greatly aided therein by immigrants from the neighboring American states; and by their influence slavery, abolished by Mexico, had been reëstablished. Texas, with the assent of its people, was now admitted to the Union as a slave state. The boundary line between Texas and Mexico was in dispute, Texas insisting on the Rio Grande as the dividing line, and Mexico

claiming the Nueces. President Polk threw into the disputed region a military force under command of General Taylor; Taylor's forces and the Mexicans came into collision; and Congress hastened to declare war. Taylor won a succession of brilliant victories and penetrated deep into the Mexican territory; and General Scott captured Vera Cruz, fought his way to the capital city, and took it. The war lasted two years, and was ended early in 1848 by a treaty in which Mexico gave up the immense region afterward organized as California, New Mexico, and Utah, and received fifteen million dollars. The acquisition of this territory was the real purpose of the conquest which the United States achieved over its weak neighbor.

The war had its chief support in the South and in the Democratic party. It roused at the North a strong protest, in the name of peace and of freedom,- a protest of which the lasting literary memorial is the "Biglow Papers." The Whig party in general, and especially its Northern wing, opposed the war throughout, and was emphatically hostile to the acquisition of any more slave territory. When in 1846 a proposal was made in Congress to give the President $2,000,000, with which to purchase an advantageous peace, David Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, moved in the House to add a proviso declaring that in all new territory that might be acquired slavery should be prohibited. The proviso passed the House, receiving almost the solid Northern vote, but it was defeated in the Senate. The "Wilmot Proviso" became the watchword of the Northern Whigs.

The Republican was in hearty sympathy with the antiwar and anti-slavery sentiment. Indeed, of open opposition to that sentiment there was very little to be found in the state. Webster presented in the Senate a resolution affirming the principle of the Wilmot Proviso, which

had been adopted in the Massachusetts House by a unanimous vote. The political situation is well illustrated by the action of the Whig State Convention at Springfield, September 30, 1847. Scott had given the finishing stroke to the war by the capture of the city of Mexico a fortnight before, though the fact was not known until four days later. The Democratic Convention had nominated for governor General Caleb Cushing, who was fighting in Mexico; had voted down a Wilmot Proviso resolution; and in its platform had ignored the slavery question. Of the Whig Convention George Ashmun was president. Webster, the idol of the Massachusetts Whigs, made one of his lucid and powerful speeches. He declared that the Whigs of the entire country are opposed to the addition of any new territory, free or slave; that the Southern Democrats want more slave territory, and the Northern Democrats more free territory; and the two wings have combined to rob Mexico, leaving the disposition of the plunder to be settled later. He said: "I never have voted, I never shall, I never will vote for further annexation to this country with a slave representation upon it. Slave representation in a political point of view is an all-important subject. The moral view is great, I know, but it is with the former that I have only to do in my capacity as legislator." The resolutions of the convention called for "Peace with Mexico without dismemberment." They declared that there should be no addition of Mexican territory to the American Union; but should any be annexed, it must be free. Webster was named for the presidency. These resolutions having been unanimously carried, another was proposed, declaring that the Whigs of the state will support no man for the presidency who is not opposed to slavery extension. This resolution was supported by Sumner, Palfrey, and C. F. Adams, and opposed by

Robert C. Winthrop and others, and was defeated by a large majority. The Republican approved the convention's action and Webster's speech, but maintained that the additional resolution ought to have been adopted.

While party politics were taking this course, a little band of the most zealous Abolitionists, with Garrison at their head, were uttering fierce denunciation against the sin of slavery, but stood aloof altogether from the voter's function and from the whole political system of which Southern slavery was an integral part. Garrison, who had never acted with the "Liberty party," reached in 1844 the position of directly assailing the Constitution, by which slavery was protected as a local institution, and the Union in which a slave-holding element was a factor. Thenceforth his cry was "The United States Constitution is a covenant with death and an agreement with hell." Before this, he and some of his associates had begun to denounce the American churches, for their complicity with slavery. They thus struck at two of the most powerful sentiments among the better class of Americans, ecclesiastical Christianity and loyalty to the nation. They smote as unsparingly as the Hebrew prophets rebuked the ceremonial system when it cloaked impiety. They denounced the churches and the Union at the same time that they were attacking one of the strongest material and political forces in the country, and defying the basest prejudices of the mob.

The Republican, like the great majority of Northern people, had no sympathy with the principles or methods of the Garrisonian Abolitionists. It was hostile to them in their assaults on the Union and the churches, was offended by their violence of language, was unsympathetic toward the brood of reforms with which they often made common cause, and showed little appreciation of the self-sacrificing earnestness and the grasp of one great VOL. I.-4