THE POLK-CLAY CONTEST
1844
President Tyler wrecked the Whig party and defeated Henry Clay for President in 1844. The Whigs had carried a majority in both Senate and House in the Harrison sweep of 1840, and they confidently expected that the Whig policy of a national bank to take the place of the bungling Sub-Treasury, of aid to public improvements, and of a protective tariff to stimulate our industries, would inaugurate a Whig political system that could be permanently maintained by the American people. President Harrison died only a little more than a month after he had been inaugurated. He was the oldest President at the time of his inauguration that the country has had, either before or since, and he was physically unequal to the severe exactions put upon him by the clamor for political positions. Civil service reform had then no part in the politics of the country, and as Jackson and Van Buren had been vindictively proscriptive in Federal appointments, it was logically expected that there would be a general removal of the Van Buren favorites. Harrison exhausted his vitality by trying to meet his friends and confer with them about political appointments, in addition to the important questions of State which demanded his attention, and he literally wore himself out and died from exhaustion.
John Tyler, who had been one of the most ardent of the Clay Whigs, was confidently expected to maintain the policy of Harrison. The public measures advocated by Clay were well understood by all, and it was reasonable to assume that Tyler, who had been long one of his most earnest supporters, was in entire accord with his chief. A special session of Congress was summoned to meet on the 31st of May, 1841, and the Whigs expected to carry all their political theories into practical effect by national statutes at an early day. To the surprise of some of the leaders, President Tyler exhibited some measure of unsoundness on the question of the United States Bank, but after repeated conferences with him they believed that they could frame a bill that would entirely meet his views and command his approval. The bill was passed by a decided majority in both branches, and the Whigs were dumbfounded by a prompt veto from the President. Other conferences followed, and a new bill was framed, to which the President assented, and although it was passed without amendment, another veto followed. The first veto of the Bank bill brought out very angry criticisms from a number of the Whig leaders, and one of the most earnest and aggressive of Tyler’s critics was John Minor Botts, then a Whig Congressman from Virginia, and one of the most brilliant and erratic of the Whig leaders of his day. It was believed that the irritation of the President, caused by the criticisms of leading Whigs, finally decided the President to veto the second Bank bill.
Thus the Whigs were defeated in one of the cardinal measures of their faith. The Whig Senators and Representatives met in caucus and published an address to the country, in which it was declared that “those who brought the President into power can no longer in any manner or degree be justly held responsible or blamed for the administration of the Executive branch of the Government.” Thus the Whig power was broken and demoralized at the very threshold of its existence, and the chasm between the Whig Senate and House, on the one side, and the President, on the other, steadily widened and deepened until it was admittedly impassable.
President Tyler’s political antecedents offer some excuse for his failure to approve the national bank. He opposed Jackson, as did many other able men in the South, because Jackson had violated the strict construction policy of Southern leaders, especially in his aggressive warfare against nullification, and one trained in the school of strict construction of the supreme law could readily find excuse for withholding his approval from the United States Bank. The same principle applied to internal improvements by the Government, and could have been applied to forbid a protective tariff. The only fruit the Whigs gathered from their great triumph of 1840 was the protective tariff of 1842, that became so popular, especially in the North, that many Democrats who supported Polk in 1844 declared that they favored the tariff of 1842, and that it could not be disturbed if Polk were elected. In Pennsylvania it was common to see in Democratic processions banners bearing the inscription of “Polk-Dallas-Shunk and the Tariff of 1842,” and a letter received by Judge Kane, of Philadelphia, from Mr. Polk during the campaign was interpreted, and plausibly interpreted, as meaning an approval of the then existing tariff. The Whigs, defeated in all their other important measures, were sadly crippled in the campaign for the succession, and even the tariff of 1842 was repealed for a moderate free-trade tariff in 1846.
President Tyler had provoked the earnest and generally vindictive hostility of the Whigs without having made friends with the Democrats. They loved and cheered his apostasy, but gave no love or individual support to the apostate. He confidently expected that they would make him the Democratic candidate for President in 1844, and that delusion was cherished by him until the Democratic National Convention met in Baltimore to nominate national candidates. It was attended by a very large number of office-holders and other friends of Tyler. Finding that they could not command any support for their favorite in the convention, they improvised a national convention of their own on the same day that the Democratic convention met, and unanimously nominated Tyler for President without naming any candidate for Vice-President. The movement had no vitality, as there was no response from either the press or the public, and on the 20th of August Tyler wrote an elaborate and reproachful letter, withdrawing his name from the list of Presidential candidates.
When his term ended he lived in retirement on his Virginia farm, unknown and unfelt as a political factor. He was among the almost forgotten men of the past when, half a generation later, he appeared in Washington as a member of the Peace Convention that was called in 1861 to devise some measures to prevent a civil war, that he did not live to see fulfil its bloody mission.
When Van Buren was defeated for re-election to the Presidency in 1840, his friends imitated the Jackson tactics of 1825 by at once renominating him by mass-meetings and through Democratic newspapers as the Democratic candidate for President in 1844, and a decided majority of the delegates to the national convention were either instructed for Van Buren or elected as his friends. Calhoun was favored by the Democrats of South Carolina and Georgia, and ex-Vice-President Johnson was an energetic candidate for the nomination, with General Cass, of Michigan, as the man who was looked to as most likely to concentrate the opposition to Van Buren. Van Buren was in the attitude before the Democratic National Convention of 1844 that Seward was before the Chicago Republican Convention of 1860. A decided majority of the delegates desired his nomination, but many of them believed that Clay would defeat him, and they were quite willing to reaffirm the two-thirds rule, even against the earnest protest of Van Buren’s most faithful leaders, because it was well known that he never could attain the two-thirds vote of the convention.
Van Buren was regarded as a most accomplished and rather an unscrupulous politician. He was certainly a brilliant political leader, a very sagacious counsellor, and believed in shaping the policy of the party chiefly or wholly with the view of success; but a short time before the meeting of the national convention he made one of the boldest political deliverances of his life against the annexation of Texas, and he did it with the knowledge that the Democrats of the South were practically united in the support of annexation, with a very large proportion of the Northern Democrats in harmony with it. In the month of May letters were given to the public from both Van Buren and Clay, opposing the annexation of Texas at that time as inexpedient, because it would mean war with Mexico, unless annexed with the consent of that nation. Clay’s letter did not strengthen him in the South, but certainly strengthened him in the North, and should have prevented the Abolition vote in New York from sacrificing Clay and electing an ardent supporter of the annexation of Texas with its slave Constitution, and under a treaty that permitted its subdivision into four new States, each of which would increase the slave power in the Senate.
Van Buren’s letter was made public just about one month before the meeting of the Democratic National Convention, and it was severely criticised by Southern newspapers and Democratic leaders generally, and with great severity by those who desired his defeat. The Richmond Enquirer, then one of the ablest and most influential of the Democratic organs of the country, edited by Mr. Ritchie, demanded that the instructions which had been given to the Virginia delegates to support Van Buren should be rescinded. In some instances delegates did disobey Van Buren instructions and others resigned rather than support him.
The convention met in Baltimore on the 27th of May, South Carolina being the only State not represented. The first important movement made in the body after its organization was the readoption of the two-thirds rule, which all understood meant the defeat of Van Buren, notwithstanding that a majority of the delegates would vote for him. The sincere and earnest friends of Van Buren battled earnestly against the adoption of the rule, but it finally prevailed by a vote of 148 to 118, and a large majority of the votes in favor of the rule were cast by Southern delegates. It was claimed by his friends, and I doubt not with reason, that had the delegates in the convention voted as they had been instructed to vote, Van Buren would have received within a very few votes of the necessary two-thirds to make a nomination on the 1st ballot.
The convention was anything but harmonious, and stormy debates were common from the beginning to the end of the proceedings of the convention. Finally the convention reached the ballot for President, and Van Buren received on the 1st ballot 146 votes to 120 for all others, giving him a clear majority of 26 of the whole convention, but under the two-thirds rule it required 178 to nominate him. The following table shows the nine ballots in detail, the last resulting in the nomination of James K. Polk, of Tennessee:
| 1st. | 2d. | 3d. | 4th. | 5th. | 6th. | 7th. | 8th. | 9th. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M. Van Buren, N. Y. | 146 | 127 | 121 | 111 | 103 | 101 | 99 | 104 | 2 |
| L. Cass, Mich. | 83 | 94 | 92 | 105 | 107 | 116 | 123 | 114 | 29 |
| R. M. Johnson, Ky. | 24 | 33 | 38 | 32 | 29 | 23 | 21 | — | — |
| J. Buchanan, Pa. | 4 | 9 | 11 | 17 | 26 | 25 | 22 | 2 | — |
| L. Woodbury, N. H. | 2 | 1 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Com. Stewart, Pa. | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| J. C. Calhoun, S. C. | 6 | 1 | 2 | — | — | — | — | 2 | — |
| J. K. Polk, Tenn. | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 44 | 233 |
Mr. Polk was the first “dark-horse” candidate ever nominated by any hopeful party for the Presidency. He had not been discussed as a candidate for President, but had been pressed by some of his political friends as a candidate for the Vice-Presidency. He had been long in Congress, was distinguished for his ability and impartiality as Speaker of the House, and had been elected Governor of his State in 1841, but had been defeated in the contest for re-election in 1843, only one year before his nomination for President. Although his nomination for President seemed to be a spontaneous movement of the convention to rescue the party from its bitter factional feuds and the wrangling ambitions of its leaders, there is little doubt that the slavery managers of the South would be satisfied with none other than a positive Texas annexationist, and secretly but systematically prepared a number of the delegates to accept Polk as a compromise when the convention should come to a deadlock on the other candidates. Polk was heralded as the special friend and protégé of Jackson, who was yet living, and those who paved the way for his nomination had very plausible arguments to offer, especially to Southern men, with whom the slavery issue had become vital. However the nomination of Polk may have been organized, it had all the appearance of a spontaneous stampede in the convention. He had only 44 votes on the 8th ballot, the first in which his name appears. While the 9th ballot was in progress the delegates began to change their votes to Polk, and the result was that before its close the chairmen of delegations were jostling each other to get their votes recorded early for the successful candidate. The Morse experimental telegraph line had just been completed between Washington and Baltimore, and the Democratic leaders at Washington were advised by telegraph of Polk’s nomination, to which a congratulatory response was promptly given.
Although the Van Buren men had finally voted for Polk, preferring him to any of the candidates who had aggressively opposed the success of Van Buren, they were profoundly grieved at Van Buren’s defeat. They believed that slavery had crucified Van Buren, and it was their purpose, during the flush of their anger, to allow Polk to suffer a humiliating disaster. The friends of Polk well understood the deep disaffection that would confront them among the friends of Van Buren, and they adopted the very shrewd policy of taking Van Buren’s ablest lieutenant as the candidate for Vice-President. Silas Wright, of New York, Van Buren’s own State, was then one of the ablest of the Democratic Senators of that day, and a most zealous supporter of Van Buren. He was nominated for Vice-President by practically a unanimous vote, only eight of the Georgia delegates preferring Levi Woodbury, of New Hampshire. Mr. Wright, being in the Senate at Washington, was at once informed by telegraph of his nomination, but smarting under what he believed to be the betrayal of Van Buren, he promptly sent a curt and peremptory declination back on the wire. Had there been no electric telegraph, Mr. Wright would have accepted the nomination for Vice-President and been elected to that position, but the success of Morse’s great invention, that had been completed between Washington and Baltimore only a few days before the convention met, changed his political destiny.
After mature reflection the friends of Van Buren were brought to terms by the Democratic leaders in the interest of Polk, and they decided to give a cordial support to the national ticket, but New York was regarded as certain to vote against Polk unless some extraordinary measures were adopted to save it. It was finally decided that only by nominating Senator Wright for Governor could the vote of the State be assured to Polk, and the man who had declined the Vice-Presidency that was within his reach, because he expected and really desired the ticket to be defeated, was compelled to resign his seat in the Senate to accept the Democratic nomination for Governor of New York. He was admittedly the strongest man in the party, and it was that nomination that saved the Democrats of New York from demoralization and made Mr. Polk President.
Two years later Wright suffered a humiliating defeat in a contest for re-election, and thus ended a political career that should have been rounded out in the second office of the Government. Jackson was made President because there were no steamers, cables, or telegraphs to advise him on the 8th of January, 1815, when he fought and won the battle of New Orleans, that peace had been declared between the two nations a fortnight before, and Silas Wright lost the Vice-Presidency and ended his political career in disaster because the telegraph had just been invented and put into operation between Washington and Baltimore.
The convention then proceeded to a second nomination for Vice-President, with the following result:
| 1st Ballot. | 2d Ballot. | |
|---|---|---|
| John Fairfield, Maine | 107 | 30 |
| Levi Woodbury, New Hampshire | 44 | 6 |
| Lewis Cass, Michigan | 39 | — |
| R. M. Johnson, Kentucky | 26 | — |
| Com. Stewart, Pennsylvania | 23 | — |
| Geo. M. Dallas, Pennsylvania | 13 | 220 |
| Wm. L. Marcy, New York | 5 | — |
The nomination of Dallas was made unanimous.
In constructing the Democratic platform for 1844 the Democrats threw out a political drag-net. The first Democratic national platform that had been adopted by the convention of 1840 was embodied in its entirety in the platform of this convention, and the following new resolutions added:
Resolved, That the American Democracy place their trust, not in factitious symbols, not in displays and appeals insulting to the judgment and subversive of the intellect of the people, but in a clear reliance upon the intelligence, patriotism, and the discriminating justice of the American people.
Resolved, That we regard this as a distinctive feature of our political creed, which we are proud to maintain before the world, as the great moral element in a form of government springing from and upheld by the popular will; and we contrast it with the creed and practice of Federalism, under whatever name or form, which seeks to palsy the will of the constituent, and which conceives no imposture too monstrous for the popular credulity.
Resolved, Therefore, that, entertaining these views, the Democratic party of this Union, through the delegates assembled in general convention of the States, coming together in a spirit of concord, of devotion to the doctrines and faith of a free representative Government, and appealing to their fellow-citizens for the rectitude of their intentions, renew and reassert before the American people the declaration of principles avowed by them on a former occasion, when, in general convention, they presented their candidates for the popular suffrage.
Resolved, That the proceeds of the public lands ought to be sacredly applied to the national objects specified in the Constitution; and that we are opposed to the laws lately adopted, and to any law, for the distribution of such proceeds among the States, as alike inexpedient in policy and repugnant to the Constitution.
Resolved, That we are decidedly opposed to taking from the President the qualified veto power by which he is enabled, under restrictions and responsibilities amply sufficient to guard the public interest, to suspend the passage of a bill, whose merits cannot secure the approval of two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, until the judgment of the people can be obtained thereon, and which has thrice saved the American people from the corrupt and tyrannical domination of the Bank of the United States.
Resolved, That our title to the whole of the territory of Oregon is clear and unquestionable; that no portion of the same ought to be ceded to England or any other power; and that the reoccupation of Oregon and the reannexation of Texas at the earliest practical period are great American measures which this convention recommends to the cordial support of the Democracy of the Union.
Resolved, That this convention hold in the highest estimation and regard their illustrious fellow-citizen, Martin Van Buren of New York; that we cherish the most grateful and abiding sense of the ability, integrity, and firmness with which he discharged the duties of the high office of President of the United States, and especially of the inflexible fidelity with which he maintained the true doctrines of the Constitution and the measures of the Democratic party during his trying and nobly arduous administration; that in the memorable struggle of 1840 he fell a martyr to the great principles of which he was the worthy representative, and we revere him as such; and that we hereby tender to him, in honorable retirement, the assurance of the deeply seated confidence, affection, and respect of the American Democracy.
The Whigs had nominated their national ticket in advance of the Democrats, the convention having been held at Baltimore on the 1st of May, with every State fully represented. It was a national assembly of unusual ability, and was most heartily and enthusiastically united in the support of Clay for the Presidency. It did not require the formality of a ballot to present him as the Whig candidate, and his nomination was made by acclamation. It required three ballots to nominate a candidate for Vice-President, as follows:
| First. | Second. | Third. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| T. Frelinghuysen, N. J. | 101 | 118 | 155 |
| John Davis, Mass. | 83 | 74 | 79 |
| Millard Fillmore, N. Y. | 53 | 51 | 40 |
| John Sergeant, Penn. | 38 | 32 | — |
| Total | 275 | 275 | 274 |
The platform adopted by the Whigs was brief but expressive. The Whig faith was tersely given in a single resolution. The other resolutions were simply eloquent tributes to Clay and Frelinghuysen, and the convention adjourned, making the welkin ring with cheers for “Harry Clay of the West” and for the “Mill Boy of the Slashes,” and absolutely confident of the triumphant election of their great leader to the highest honors of the Republic. The first Whig national platform was as follows:
Resolved, That, in presenting to the country the names of Henry Clay for President and of Theodore Frelinghuysen for Vice-President of the United States, this convention is actuated by the conviction that all the great principles of the Whig party—principles inseparable from the public honor and prosperity—will be maintained and advanced by these candidates.
Resolved, That these principles may be summed as comprising: a well-regulated currency; a tariff for revenue to defray the necessary expenses of the Government, and discriminating with special reference to the protection of the domestic labor of the country; the distribution of the proceeds from the sales of the public lands; a single term for the presidency; a reform of executive usurpations; and generally such an administration of the affairs of the country as shall impart to every branch of the public service the greatest practical efficiency, controlled by a well-regulated and wise economy.
Resolved, That the name of Henry Clay needs no eulogy. The history of the country since his first appearance in public life is his history. Its brightest pages of prosperity and success are identified with the principles which he has upheld, as its darkest and more disastrous pages are with every material departure in our public policy from those principles.
Resolved, That in Theodore Frelinghuysen we present a man pledged alike by his Revolutionary ancestry and his own public course to every measure calculated to sustain the honor and interest of the country. Inheriting the principles as well as the name of a father who, with Washington, on the fields of Trenton and of Monmouth, perilled life in the contest for liberty, and afterward, as a Senator of the United States, acted with Washington in establishing and perpetuating that liberty, Theodore Frelinghuysen, by his course as Attorney-General of the State of New Jersey for twelve years, and subsequently as a Senator of the United States for several years, was always strenuous on the side of law, order, and the Constitution, while, as a private man, his head, his hand, and his heart have been given without stint to the cause of morals, education, philanthropy, and religion.
The third national convention that presented candidates for the campaign of 1844 was that of the Abolitionists. They had grown since 1840, when they first nominated Mr. Birney as their candidate, and their platform, elaborate as it is, is well worthy of careful study. It met at Buffalo, in August, 1843, and nominated James G. Birney, of New York, for President, and Thomas Morris, of Ohio, for Vice-President, and it increased its vote up to 62,300, all of which were cast in the Northern States, including 15,812 for Birney in New York. As nearly all of them were of Whig antecedents, they would have preferred Clay to Polk if they had not presented a ticket of their own to divert their votes, and it was their support of Birney that gave Polk the majority over Clay in the Empire State, whose electoral vote decided the contest. The following is the full text of the first platform presented by an Abolition national convention:
Resolved, That human brotherhood is a cardinal principle of true democracy, as well as of pure Christianity, which spurns all inconsistent limitations; and neither the political party which repudiates it nor the political system which is not based upon it can be truly democratic or permanent.
Resolved, That the Liberty party, placing itself upon this broad principle, will demand the absolute and unqualified divorce of the General Government from slavery, and also the restoration of equality of rights among men, in every State where the party exists or may exist.
Resolved, That the Liberty party has not been organized for any temporary purpose by interested politicians, but has arisen from among the people in consequence of a conviction, hourly gaining ground, that no other party in the country represents the true principles of American liberty or the true spirit of the Constitution of the United States.
Resolved, That the Liberty party has not been organized merely for the overthrow of slavery. Its first decided effort must indeed be directed against slaveholding as the grossest and most revolting manifestation of despotism, but it will also carry out the principle of equal rights into all its practical consequences and applications, and support every just measure conducive to individual and social freedom.
Resolved, That the Liberty party is not a sectional party, but a national party; was not originated in a desire to accomplish a single object, but in a comprehensive regard to the great interests of the whole country; is not a new party nor a third party, but is the party of 1776, reviving the principles of that memorable era, and striving to carry them into practical application.
Resolved, That it was understood in the times of the Declaration and the Constitution that the existence of slavery in some of the States was in derogation of the principles of American liberty, and a deep stain upon the character of the country and the implied faith of the States; and the nation was pledged that slavery should never be extended beyond its then existing limits, but should be gradually, and yet at no distant day, wholly abolished by State authority.
Resolved, That the faith of the States and the nation thus pledged was most nobly redeemed by the voluntary abolition of slavery in several of the States, and by the adoption of the ordinance of 1787 for the government of the territory northwest of the river Ohio, then the only territory in the United States, and consequently the only territory subject in this respect to the control of Congress, by which ordinance slavery was forever excluded from the vast regions which now compose the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and the Territory of Wisconsin, and an incapacity to bear up any other than free men was impressed on the soil itself.
Resolved, That the faith of the States and nation thus pledged has been shamefully violated by the omission on the part of many of the States to take any measures whatever for the abolition of slavery within their respective limits; by the continuance of slavery in the District of Columbia and in the Territories of Louisiana and Florida; by the legislation of Congress; by the protection afforded by national legislation and negotiation to slaveholding in American vessels, on the high seas, employed in the coastwise slave traffic; and by the extension of slavery far beyond its original limits, by acts of Congress admitting new Slave States into the Union.
Resolved, That the fundamental truth of the Declaration of Independence, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, was made the fundamental law of our National Government by that amendment of the Constitution which declares that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Resolved, That we recognize as sound the doctrine maintained by slaveholding jurists, that slavery is against natural rights and strictly local, and that its existence and continuance rest on no other support than State legislation, and not on any authority of Congress.
Resolved, That the General Government has, under the Constitution, no power to establish or continue slavery anywhere, and therefore that all treaties and acts of Congress establishing, continuing, or favoring slavery in the District of Columbia, in the Territory of Florida, or on the high seas, are unconstitutional, and all attempts to hold men as property within the limits of exclusive national jurisdiction ought to be prohibited by law.
Resolved, That the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, which confer extraordinary political powers on the owners of slaves, and thereby constituting the two hundred and fifty thousand slaveholders in the Slave States a privileged aristocracy, and the provision for the reclamation of fugitive slaves from service, are anti-republican in their character, dangerous to the liberties of the people, and ought to be abrogated.
Resolved, That the practical operation of the second of these provisions is seen in the enactment of the Act of Congress respecting persons escaping from their masters, which act, if the construction given to it by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Prigg v. Pennsylvania be correct, nullifies the habeas corpus acts of all the States, takes away the whole legal security of personal freedom, and ought therefore to be immediately repealed.
Resolved, That the peculiar patronage and support hitherto extended to slavery and slaveholding by the General Government ought to be immediately withdrawn, and the example and influence of national authority ought to be arrayed on the side of liberty and free labor.
Resolved, That the practice of the General Government, which prevails in the Slave States, of employing slaves upon the public works, instead of free laborers, and paying aristocratic masters, with a view to secure or reward political services, is utterly indefensible and ought to be abandoned.
Resolved, That the freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of petition and the right of trial by jury, are sacred and inviolable; and that all rules, regulations, and laws in derogation of either are oppressive, unconstitutional, and not to be endured by free people.
Resolved, That we regard voting, in an eminent degree, as a moral and religious duty, which, when exercised, should be by voting for those who will do all in their power for immediate emancipation.
Resolved, That this convention recommend to the friends of liberty in all those Free States where any inequality of rights and privileges exists on account of color, to employ their utmost energies to remove all such remnants and effects of the slave system.
Whereas, The Constitution of these United States is a series of agreements, covenants, or contracts between the people of the United States, each with all and all with each; and
Whereas, It is a principle of universal morality, that the moral laws of the Creator are paramount to all human laws; or, in the language of an Apostle, that “we ought to obey God rather than men;” and
Whereas, The principle of common law, that any contract, covenant, or agreement to do an act derogatory to natural rights is vitiated and annulled by its inherent immorality, has been recognized by one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, who in a recent case expressly holds that any “contract that rests upon such a basis is void;” and
Whereas, The third clause of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States, when construed as providing for the surrender of a fugitive slave, does “rest upon such a basis,” in that it is a contract to rob a man of a natural right, namely, his natural right to his own liberty, and is, therefore, absolutely void; therefore,
Resolved, That we hereby give it to be distinctly understood by this nation and the world, that, as Abolitionists, considering that the strength of our cause lies in its righteousness, and our hope for it in our conformity to the laws of God and our respect for the rights of man, we owe it to the Sovereign Ruler of the universe, as a proof of our allegiance to Him, in all our civil relations and offices, whether as private citizens or as public functionaries sworn to support the Constitution of the United States, to regard and to treat the third clause of the fourth article of that instrument, whenever applied to the case of a fugitive slave, as utterly null and void, and consequently as forming no part of the Constitution of the United States, whenever we are called upon or sworn to support it.
Resolved, That the power given to Congress by the Constitution, to provide for calling out the militia to suppress insurrection, does not make it the duty of the Government to maintain slavery by military force, much less does it make it the duty of the citizens to form a part of such military force. When freemen unsheath the sword, it should be to strike for liberty, not for despotism.
Resolved, That to preserve the peace of the citizens and secure the blessings of freedom, the Legislature of each of the Free States ought to keep in force suitable statutes rendering it penal for any of its inhabitants to transport, or aid in transporting from such State, any person sought to be thus transported merely because subject to the slave laws of any other State; this remnant of independence being accorded to the Free States by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prigg v. The State of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Clay enjoyed a much larger measure of personal popularity than any other man in the nation, and he was universally accepted as the most gifted political orator of his day. He was to the Whigs of that time what Blaine was to the Republicans during his several unsuccessful battles for the Presidency. It is a notable fact in political history that no pre-eminent political orator ever succeeded in reaching the Presidency. Garfield was the nearest approach to it, but he was a contemporary of Blaine, and Blaine far outstripped him either on the hustings or in parliamentary debate. Clay had entered both the House and Senate when little more than eligible by age, and he was admittedly the most accomplished presiding officer the House ever had. He was the Commoner of the war of 1812, and rendered most conspicuous service to his country. His speeches in the House did more than the persuasion of any other dozen men to force the young Republic into a second contest with England on the right of search on the high seas. He was always strong in argument, was often impassioned and superbly eloquent, and in every great emergency of the country during the first half of the present century he was the pacificator. President Madison was most reluctant to declare war against England, and he yielded to it only when it became a supreme necessity to obey the general demand of the country for an appeal to arms.
When Clay was nominated for President in 1844, it was generally believed that he would have an easy victory over Van Buren, and when Polk, of Tennessee, was made the compromise candidate against him, the Whigs at first believed that the nomination of a comparatively obscure man against the great chieftain of the Whigs would give them a walk-over. The campaign had made little progress, however, until the Whigs discovered that the Democrats were going to be thoroughly united on Polk, and that he was probably the strongest candidate who could have been nominated against Clay. His chief strength was in his negative qualities. He had not been involved in any of the conflicts of ambition among the Democratic leaders. He was regarded as the favorite of Jackson, and while his nomination had been made without any previous discussion or suggestion of his claims to the Presidency, he had filled high State and national positions with credit, and he could not be accused of incompetency. I doubt indeed whether any other Democrat could have been nominated by the Democratic convention to make a successful battle against Clay.
The Whigs entered the contest defiant in confidence and enthusiastic to a degree that had never before been exhibited in the support of any candidate. The devotion of the Whigs to Clay was little less than idolatry, and strong men shed scalding tears over his defeat. He was largely handicapped in his battle by the complications put upon the Whig party by President Tyler. The Cabinet was wholly Democratic and bitterly against Clay. Under the demoralization caused by Tyler’s betrayal of the party the Whigs had lost the House in 1842, but they retained their mastery in the Senate, and a new peril to Clay was soon developed in the growth of the Abolition sentiment of Western New York. Neither Clay nor Polk made campaign speeches, and both maintained themselves with scrupulous dignity throughout the long and exceptionally desperate contest.
Pennsylvania was then, as in 1860, the pivotal State of the struggle, and the death of the Democratic candidate for Governor during the midsummer deprived the Whigs of a source of strength that most likely would have given them the State in October. The Democrats had a violent factional dispute in choosing a candidate for Governor. Mr. Muhlenberg, who had been a bolting candidate against Governor Wolfe in 1835, thereby electing Ritner, the anti-Masonic candidate, was finally nominated for Governor over Francis R. Shunk, the candidate of the opposing faction. Muhlenberg was weakened by his aggressive factional record, and the Democrats were hardly hopeful of his election, but he died just when the struggle was at its zenith, and Shunk was then unanimously and cordially accepted as the Democratic leader.
The Whigs had nominated General Markle, of Westmoreland, who was unquestionably the strongest man they could have presented. The Presidential battle was practically fought in that contest for Governor, and when Shunk was elected by 4397 majority, there were few who cherished much hope of Clay’s election. Pennsylvania lost in October could not be regained in November, but the Whigs did not in any measure relax their efforts, and Polk carried the State over Clay by 6332.
When Pennsylvania faltered the greatly impaired hopes of the Whigs centred in New York, as it was believed that New York might decide the contest in favor of Clay, even with Pennsylvania certain to vote against him. The nomination of Silas Wright for Governor had thoroughly united the Van Buren followers in support of Polk, and while Clay stood against the annexation of Texas and the extension of the slave power, the antislavery sentiment of New York was greatly strengthened by the fact that both Clay and Polk were Southerners and slaveholders. Birney, the Abolition candidate, received 15,812 votes, while Polk’s majority in the State was 5106. Mr. Greeley, who was one of the leaders in the antislavery movement, and much more practical than the organized Abolitionists, bitterly denounced that party for defeating Clay. In his Whig Almanac for 1845 he had an elaborate review of the contest, in which he said:
“The year 1844 just ended has witnessed one of the most extraordinary political contests that has ever occurred. So nice and equal a balance of parties; so universal and intense an interest; so desperate and protracted a struggle, are entirely without parallel.... James K. Polk owes his election to the Birney or Liberty party. Had there been no such party drawing its votes nine-tenths from the Whig ranks, Mr. Clay would have received at least the votes of New York and Michigan, in addition to those actually cast for him, giving him 146 electoral votes to Polk’s 129. To Birney & Co., therefore, is the country indebted for the election of Polk and the annexation and anti-tariff ascendency in the Federal Government.”
The number of States voting was 26, the same as in 1840. The new Congressional apportionment had reduced the Representatives from 242 to 223, making the total number of electors 275. The following table exhibits the popular and electoral vote:
| STATES. | Popular Vote. | Electors. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| James K. Polk. | Henry Clay. | James G. Birney. | Polk. | Clay. | |
| Maine | 45,719 | 34,378 | 4,836 | 9 | — |
| New Hampshire | 27,160 | 17,866 | 4,161 | 6 | — |
| Vermont | 18,041 | 26,770 | 3,954 | — | 6 |
| Massachusetts | 52,846 | 67,418 | 10,860 | — | 12 |
| Rhode Island | 4,867 | 7,322 | 107 | — | 4 |
| Connecticut | 29,841 | 32,832 | 1,943 | — | 6 |
| New York | 237,588 | 232,482 | 15,812 | 36 | — |
| New Jersey | 37,495 | 38,318 | 131 | — | 7 |
| Pennsylvania | 167,535 | 161,203 | 3,138 | 26 | — |
| Delaware | 5,996 | 6,278 | —— | — | 3 |
| Maryland | 32,676 | 35,984 | —— | — | 8 |
| Virginia | 49,570 | 43,677 | —— | 17 | — |
| North Carolina | 39,287 | 43,232 | —— | — | 11 |
| South Carolina[12] | —— | —— | —— | 9 | — |
| Georgia | 44,177 | 42,100 | —— | 10 | — |
| Alabama | 37,740 | 26,084 | —— | 9 | — |
| Mississippi | 25,126 | 19,206 | —— | 6 | — |
| Louisiana | 13,782 | 13,083 | —— | 6 | — |
| Kentucky | 51,988 | 61,255 | —— | — | 12 |
| Tennessee | 59,917 | 60,030 | —— | — | 13 |
| Missouri | 41,369 | 31,251 | —— | 7 | — |
| Arkansas | 9,546 | 5,504 | —— | 3 | — |
| Ohio | 149,117 | 155,057 | 8,050 | — | 23 |
| Michigan | 27,759 | 24,337 | 3,632 | 5 | — |
| Indiana | 70,181 | 67,867 | 2,106 | 12 | — |
| Illinois | 57,920 | 45,528 | 3,570 | 9 | — |
| Totals | 1,337,243 | 1,299,062 | 62,300 | 170 | 105 |
The Whigs, in keen despair over the defeat of their ablest and most beloved champion, charged fraud as the controlling factor in giving the Democrats their victory, but the battle had been fought and lost, and there was nothing left for them but submission. The electoral count was uneventful, and Polk and Dallas were formally declared elected President and Vice-President without objection.
The most desperate contests outside of New York and Pennsylvania were made in Tennessee and Delaware. Tennessee was the home of Polk, and the “Old Hero of New Orleans” threw himself into the contest for Polk with tireless energy. He inspired his veteran followers not only because he wanted Polk elected, but because he much more wanted Clay defeated. Clay had defeated him for President in the House in 1825, and Jackson never forgot a friend and rarely forgave an enemy. It was many days after the election before the vote of Tennessee could be ascertained, and it was claimed by both parties until the official vote was declared. It was finally announced that Clay had carried the State by 113, and the success of Clay in that State was the only silver lining the Whigs had to the dark cloud of their defeat.
Another memorable battle, though not in any sense an important contest as affecting the result, was fought in Delaware. The States did not then vote for President on the same day as now. All of them voted for Presidential electors in the month of November, although at that time nearly all the States elected their State officers and Congressmen earlier in the year. Delaware, with only 3 electoral votes, held both her State and her Presidential elections on the second Tuesday of November, and when her election day came around it was known to all that Clay was absolutely defeated for President.
New York and Pennsylvania had voted for Polk a week before, and on the second Tuesday of November only Massachusetts and Delaware were left among the States that had not yet chosen electors. Massachusetts was Whig and hardly contested, but Delaware made a most heroic battle for Clay, even when it was known that a victory in the little Diamond State could not aid the election of their favorite. The Democrats, inspired by their positively assured success in the national contest, exhausted their resources and efforts to win, but in the largest vote ever cast in the State, Clay won by 287 majority, receiving a larger vote than was cast for the Whig candidates for Governor or for Congress, both of whom were successful, the first by 45 majority and the last by 173.
The Kentucky electors met at their Capitol on the day appointed for the electoral colleges to cast their votes for President, and in sorrowing devotion to their chief cast the vote of the State for Clay for President. After their official duties had been performed a committee was appointed to prepare an address to be delivered to Mr. Clay at Ashland. All the members of the college, with many other citizens, accompanied the committee, and Clay met them at his hospitable door to hear the address delivered by Mr. Underwood, the chairman. Clay’s reply was one of the most beautiful of his very many exquisite illustrations of oratory. He said he would not “affect indifference to the personal concern which I had in the political contest just terminated, but unless I am greatly self-deceived, the principal attraction to me of the office of President of the United States arose out of the cherished hope that I might be an humble instrument, in the hands of Providence, to accomplish public good,” and in conclusion he said: “I heartily thank you, sir, for your friendly wishes for my happiness in the retirement which henceforth best becomes me.” Thus closed the memorable Polk-Clay contest of 1844.