Page images
PDF
EPUB

COMPARISON OF VOTES.

123

that it is "6. a paper which has contributed more to the election of Polk than any other Locofoco paper in the country." There was nothing whatever gained to the cause of liberty, or to any other useful object, by the factious conduct of the third party of that day, which then became, for the first time, recognized as a political organization; though in 1840, about seven thousand votes had been cast for Mr. Birney, who was again their candidate in 1844.

But from the election of Mr. Polk, an event procured directly by their means, proceeded the Mexican war, the annexation of Texas, the embitterment of the sectional conflict, and the long train of evils which has since ensued. Yet the history of the two national elections which immediately followed upon that of Mr. Polk shows clearly enough, that their power, though able in that instance to work such a beginning of mischief, was yet extremely limited; and through judicious action by the two great parties, it might soon have become as insignificant as the influence of the abolitionists themselves. In 1844, their vote amounted to 62,300, out of an entire vote of 2,698,605. In 1848, when General Taylor was elected by the Whig party, though Ex-President Van Buren had consented to become the candidate of the Liberty men, and they were aided by all the discontent to which the Texan question had given rise, they obtained 291,263 votes, in a popular vote exceeding that of the preceding occasion by about 174,000. In 1852, when the general public mind had settled down into contentment with the compromise measures of 1850, and General Pierce was chosen by the Democrats, aided by not a few Whigs, who believed that the internal peace of the country would be most surely rendered permanent by the election of a member of the other party, the vote of the Liberty faction for their candidate, Mr. John P. Hale, fell off to 157,296, although the popular vote had increased to 3,143,679.

But if the Whigs had afterwards stood firmly to their original principles, instead of making gradual concessions to a party, whose agents had declared that its self-preservation

depended upon uncompromising hostility to themselves, they might easily have regained the power which the Liberty party built up upon their self-sought ruin, and the country would have been saved from the incomparable ills with which it has been and is likely long to be afflicted.

A wide field was thus left open for such Northern Democratic politicians as preferred personal advantage to public principle; so that, by truckling to local prejudice, they might win votes for themselves, and sell their country to a faction. At a later period, it became more or less of a political scramble between the two parties for the favor of a class of men actuated by no sentiments of patriotism, and whom both should have been ashamed to court. In the end, the position of affairs was substantially reversed. The Northern Democrats, losing by desertion not a few of their conspicuous leaders, showed themselves, in the main, the defenders of the Constitution; while the masses of the Northern Whigs became entangled in the fatal meshes of sectionalism, leaving their more honorable chiefs, who had vainly striven to avert the current of demoralization, to struggle in vain, or to stand aloof from a controversy, in the issue of which they believed they saw the ruin of their free institutions.

CHAPTER V.

The Political Canvass of 1840.-The Whig Party Success.-A Whig Governor's Abolition Address to the Massachusetts Legislature, in 1844.-Revolutionary Resolutions of the same Legislature, their Presentation in Congress, and the Disposition made of them. -Resolutions of United States House of Representatives.-Appointment of a Massachusetts Commissioner to Charleston, South Carolina, and his Reception.-Its Effect. -The Expediency of the Measure considered.-Repeal of the 21st Rule."-The Texas Question.-The State of Parties.-Dissolution menaced by the Legislature of Massachusetts, in 1845.

In the political canvass of 1840, the Whigs had apparently achieved a signal victory over their Democratic opponents. The administration of Mr. Van Buren had become extremely unpopular, by a course of policy injuriously affecting the commercial interests of the country. The sufferings and dissatisfactions were shared though in unequal proportions, by men in business who had acted with both parties. When Mr. Van Buren was elected in 1836, a comparatively small popular vote had been cast, for it was generally held certain that he would come in, upon "the footsteps of his illustrious predecessor." He then received 170 electoral votes, against 73 given for General Harrison. In 1840, although the contest was warm, and a very largely increased popular vote was cast, on both sides, the electoral ballot stood for Harrison 234, for Van Buren 60. On the former occasion, Van Buren had the majority in fifteen States and Harrison in seven; at the later election, nineteen States chose electors for Harrison, and seven only chose electors for Van Buren.

The victory was fully anticipated, and the Whigs had the opportunity presented, in their Convention, of making

the most of the favorable time, by selecting one of the two most eminent statesmen of their party, Webster or Clay, for their candidate. If the conflict between the rival pretensions of those great citizens had been disregarded, and either of them had been nominated for the Presidency, it is probable that the election would have been equally safe, in the temper of the popular mind, though perhaps not equally decisive; but the result would have given an entirely different turn to the course of public events. A defeat, in a contest of principles, would have been far preferable, and far more salutary in its future consequences, than such a short-lived triumph, achieved upon doctrines of expediency, and followed by complications and general public confusion, which subsequent events turned into the sources of absolute disaster. A gentleman of more sterling worth than General Harrison could not have been fixed upon; but he was at a very advanced period of life, and though certainly distinguished by more than usual ability and much public service, was selected rather as being unobjectionable, and in order to make the victory sure, than in reference to any special individual claims for a place of such dignity and responsibility. Mr. Tyler, who succeeded him, when the brief month of life permitted to President Harrison after his inauguration, was gone, had been a member of the Democratic party, was in attendance upon the Whig Convention as a recent convert, and was good-naturedly nominated for the Vice-Presidency, in the hurry of the occasion, and upon the refusal of others who had been thought of to occupy that position. Nothing could have been more injudicious than the conduct of the Whigs, in both instances. President Harrison, verging upon seventy years of age, speedily sank under the burdens of office; and Mr. Tyler, long balancing between his present and his former political associations, at length yielded to the latter. Hence, the Whig party lost altogether the fruits of a victory, which had been hailed with unexampled exultation as a pledge of the renovated fortunes of the country. The disappointment was keenly felt; but the false step was

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

127

productive of many future evil consequences. More than ever before, politics, instead of serving as the expression of true patriotism, was fast sinking into a game of adventurers and mere self-seekers.

At the beginning of the session of the Massachusetts Legislature, in 1844, that body had hastened to follow the example of Vermont; but far exceeded the action of that State, by passing resolutions to be offered to Congress of a decidedly revolutionary character. In his inaugural address, delivered January 10th, 1844, the Whig Governor, Briggs, seems to have determined not to be outdone by his Democratic predecessor. He also must needs bring up the vexed question of slavery. He remarked to the two Houses:

"Indeed, there is reason to believe that before the existence of our Constitution, our highest court held the opinion that the Declaration of Independence put an end to slavery in this State."

Without staying to inquire, upon so loose a statement as this, whether it is conceivable that a highly respectable tribunal can have held, that the expression of any mere general declaratory opinion, by a convention of delegates of independent and sovereign States, can have had the legal effect of annulling the laws of those States-it may be remarked that such a view is totally inconsistent with the Articles of Confederation, agreed upon two years after the Declaration was issued, and with the Constitution of the United States, as finally adopted. Of course, if that Declaration, the object of which was simply to dissolve the bonds of allegiance of the colonies to Great Britain, could put an end to slavery in one State, it would have the same effect in all; and hence the Constitution of the United States would rest under the

1 Not to cite other clauses of the Articles of Confederation, the second Article is sufficient, namely:

"Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

The Constitution, by Article IV., section 2, provides for the delivery of per sons held to service or labor.

« PreviousContinue »