THE TAYLOR-CASS-VAN BUREN CONTEST
1848
President Polk was not blessed with a tranquil administration. The annexation of Texas had been approved by Tyler several days before Polk was inaugurated as President, and that at once made strained relations between this country and Mexico. It was an open secret then, and is now a part of the undisputed history of the country, that the election of Polk and the annexation of Texas were regarded by the friends of slavery extension as most important achievements, and that period dated the aggressive action of the South, first to extend and next to nationalize slavery. The annexation of Texas brought in a Slave State and two United States Senators, with the treaty right to add eight new Senators by the subdivision of the State.
This met Calhoun’s complaint that the South could not maintain its equilibrium in the Senate because of the growing West. The purposes of the Southern extensionists, however, went far beyond the annexation of Texas. They meant to have part of Mexico, peaceably if possible, by war if necessary; and the war was deliberately planned and precipitated upon Mexico by the action of the administration. The territory between the Nueces and the Rio Grande rivers was claimed by both Texas and Mexico, but Mexico had exercised uniform jurisdiction. Texas had never served a writ or collected a dollar of revenue on the Rio Grande, and the United States army of occupation, commanded by General Taylor, had not gone south of the Nueces. There was much violent discussion in Mexico over the annexation of Texas, whose independence Mexico disputed, and threats of war were freely made.
The President, without the authority or knowledge of Congress, ordered General Taylor to march to the Rio Grande and maintain it as the southern line of Texas. This precipitated the battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma, in which Taylor defeated the Mexicans. The Democratic Congress then prefaced a bill providing for the national defence by declaring that “we are at war by the act of Mexico.” The purpose of the Mexican war was very freely and severely criticised by a large portion of the people and by many of the ablest men of the nation. The Whigs in Congress were willing to vote for all needed appropriations for the support of the army, but a few members of the House, with the late John Strohm, of Pennsylvania, as the leader, after unsuccessfully struggling to strike out the declaration that “we were at war by the act of Mexico,” refused to vote for the army appropriation; and Corwin, of Ohio, made the ablest speech that ever was delivered in the Senate, with the single exception of Webster’s reply to Hayne, against the Mexican war and against appropriating money for its prosecution.
ZACHARY TAYLOR
The certainty that the administration would acquire a large portion of Mexican territory for the purpose of creating new Slave States gave dignity and importance to the slavery agitation that it never before attained, and in the fall elections of 1846 the Whigs carried the popular branch of Congress by a decided majority. The repeal of the protective tariff of 1842 and the substitution of the revenue tariff of 1846 contributed considerably to the Democratic disaster, and the war was finally prosecuted by the administration with an adverse House, although willing to furnish all appropriations necessary to support the armies in the field.
After Taylor’s early victories over the Mexicans he invaded Mexican territory and captured Monterey, and these victories made his name a household word throughout the country. Instead of permitting Taylor to proceed with the war that he had so successfully conducted up to that time, the administration decided to practically retire him. General Scott was called to plan an independent campaign from Vera Cruz to the capital of Mexico. It was openly charged that the administration feared the popularity of “Old Zach,” as Taylor was generally called by the people, and that it had little fear of Scott as a Presidential candidate. Scott planned his campaign; was furnished with an independent army, and when he arrived at Vera Cruz he stripped General Taylor of nearly all his regulars, leaving him an army of but little over 4000, most of them volunteers. Santa Anna, whose return to Mexico had been sanctioned by our Government, made himself Military Dictator. He gathered an army of 22,000 of the best Mexican troops and made a rapid movement to strike and crush General Taylor at Buena Vista. The history of that battle is well known. Taylor not only defeated but routed the Mexicans, and thereby made himself the next President of the United States.
General Scott made a most brilliant campaign, fighting repeated battles, and finally captured the City of Mexico, when the administration involved him in bitter controversy, as was easily done with General Scott, and had him tried by a court of his inferiors in the Capitol of the enemy he had conquered. Brilliant as was his military campaign he returned home with little if any increased prestige, and every schoolboy in the land was huzzaing for “Old Zach,” or for “Old Rough and Ready.”
There seems to be poetic justice in the marvellous historical fact that with the large amount of territory conquered from Mexico, and the additional territory afterward purchased by the Gadsden treaty, the South did not gain a single Slave State, and it quickened the issue of slavery that greatly hastened its destruction just when it hoped to attain omnipotence.
It was uncertain after the war of Mexico was inaugurated and the certainty of the acquisition of Mexican territory accepted just when and in what shape the issue of the extension of slavery would be presented. To the surprise of the friends of the administration it came much sooner and in much graver form than they had anticipated. On the 8th of August, 1846, President Polk sent a message to Congress asking for an appropriation to be placed at the President’s disposal to enable him to negotiate an advantageous treaty of peace with the Mexican Government, and a bill was promptly presented to the House appropriating $32,000,000 for immediate use in negotiations with Mexico. There were a number of able and earnest antislavery Democrats in the House, and among them David Wilmot, of Pennsylvania. When the bill, making the large appropriation to obtain peace with Mexico, that obviously meant the acquisition of Southern territory, was presented to the House, repeated conferences were had between the antislavery Democratic leaders, and what has since been known as the “Wilmot Proviso” was originally drawn by Judge Brinkerhoff, then a Democratic Congressman from Ohio, and finally revised and agreed upon, to be offered as an amendment to the Mexican Appropriation bill.
The Speaker was adverse to the antislavery Democrats, and it was uncertain whether any of them could obtain the floor to offer the amendment. The result was that a copy of the proviso was furnished to some half a dozen, with the understanding that each should take advantage of any opportunity to obtain the floor during the consideration of the bill and offer the amendment. The opportunity happened to come to Mr. Wilmot, and he offered the following amendment, that is the original of what is now known as the “Wilmot Proviso.”
“Provided, That as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, by virtue of any treaty that may be negotiated between them, and to the use by the Executive of the moneys herein appropriated, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory except for crime whereof the party shall be first duly convicted.”
This proviso came like a bombshell into the ranks of the administrationists, and they were unable to defeat it. It was carried in Committee of the Whole by a vote of 83 to 64, with only 3 Democrats from the Free States opposing it. When the measure was reported to the House, Mr. Tibbatts, of Kentucky, moved that it do lie on the table, and the motion was defeated by 93 to 79. The bill was engrossed for third reading by 85 to 80, and passed finally without further division, with a motion to reconsider laid on the table by vote of 83 to 73. Thus what is now known as the Wilmot Proviso was embodied by the House in the Appropriation bill for negotiating peace with Mexico.
The Wilmot Proviso raised the slavery issue in the most direct form, and it played an important part in the Presidential contest of 1848. It was simply a repetition of the clause prohibiting slavery that was put in the ordinance of 1787 by Thomas Jefferson, when the Northwestern Territory was ceded by Virginia to the United States. It was a very embarrassing issue to many Northern Democrats, and to a few Southern Whigs who inclined to prevent slavery extension. General Cass, who was made the candidate for President in 1848, originally declared himself in favor of the Wilmot Proviso, but he learned a year later that no man could maintain his fellowship with the Democratic party under the Polk administration and support the prohibition of slavery in the Territories.
When the discussion of candidates for the Presidential contest of 1848 became active, General Cass was addressed on the subject of slavery by A. O. P. Nicholson, of Nashville, Tenn., in which he inquired of Cass whether he was in favor of the acquisition of Mexican territory, and what his views were as to the Wilmot Proviso. General Cass answered, December 24, 1847, in which he declared himself in favor of the acquisition of Mexican territory and against the Wilmot Proviso, on which point he said: “I am strongly impressed with the opinion that a great change has been going on in the public mind upon this subject, in my own as well as others, and that doubts are resolving themselves into convictions that the principle it involves should be kept out of the national Legislature and left to the people of the Confederacy in their respective local governments.” But for this declaration Cass would not have been the Democratic candidate for President in 1848, and that declaration also opened the door for the Van Buren bolt that defeated Cass in the great ambition of his life.
In addition to the serious political complications which confronted the Polk administration and threatened the defeat of the Democratic party at its close, the Oregon dispute with England, that had been made one of the chief features of the Polk campaign of 1844, was sensibly adjusted by Secretary of State Buchanan, but in utter disregard of the Democratic declarations and ostentatious professions of the campaign. In that contest the Democrats from every stump declared that the boundary line between Oregon and England must be “54° 40´, or fight”; but when the issue became a question of statesmanship and diplomacy, a treaty was made fixing 49° as the boundary, and thus confessing that the claim of the Democrats in the campaign was made either in ignorance or insincerity.
Another of the troubles that confronted the Democracy was the intense factional dispute in New York between what were known as the Hunkers and the Barnburners. The Hunkers were so called in derision by their enemies as men who always hunkered after office, and the Barnburners were so called by their opponents because it was charged that to correct evils in the party, they were ready to follow the foolish farmer who burnt his barn to rid it of rats.
Silas Wright, who had lost the Vice-Presidency in 1844 by his devotion to Van Buren, and was finally compelled to run for Governor to save the State, suffered a severe defeat in 1846 when a candidate for re-election. That defeat was charged by Van Buren and his friends to the perfidy of the Hunkers. So intense was the bitterness between these factions that they could not agree on delegations to the national convention, and two opposing delegations were chosen, the Barnburners being antislavery Democrats and the Hunkers the regular or pro-slavery Democrats. The national convention met at Baltimore on the 22d of May, 1848, with every State represented, and New York with a double delegation. Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, was made President, and the two-thirds rule was adopted by a vote of 175 to 78. For two days the convention wrangled over the disputing delegations from New York, and after protracted and angry debate a motion was finally passed by 126 to 124 admitting both delegations, each to cast half the vote of the State.
While this was a comparative victory for the Barnburners, they withdrew from the convention, and the Hunker delegation refused to participate in the proceedings. The prominent candidates before the convention for President were Cass and Buchanan, with Cass immensely in the lead and reasonably certain to be nominated before the convention met. He had a large plurality on the 1st ballot, but did not reach the requisite two-thirds vote until the 4th, as is shown by the following table, giving the ballots in detail:
| First. | Second. | Third. | Fourth. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Necessary to a choice | 168 | 168 | 169 | 169 |
| Lewis Cass, Mich. | 125 | 133 | 156 | 179 |
| James Buchanan, Penn. | 55 | 54 | 40 | 33 |
| Levi Woodbury, N. H. | 53 | 56 | 53 | 38 |
| George M. Dallas, Penn. | 3 | 3 | — | — |
| W. J. Worth, Tenn. | 6 | 6 | 5 | 1 |
| John C. Calhoun, S. C. | 9 | — | — | — |
| W. O. Butler, Ky. | — | — | — | 3 |
The convention adjourned after the nomination of Cass to meet in evening session to select a candidate for Vice-President, and without any preliminaries the ballot was had as follows:
| Wm. O. Butler, Ky. | 114 |
| J. A. Quitman, Miss. | 74 |
| John Y. Mason, Va. | 24 |
| Wm. R. King, Ala. | 29 |
| Jas. J. McKay, N. C. | 13 |
| Jefferson Davis, Miss. | 1 |
A 2d ballot was had and ended in the unanimous nomination of Butler.
The platform of the party was not reported until the fifth and final day of the convention, and it was altogether the most elaborate declaration of principles ever made by a political party in national convention. Immediately after the first resolution as we give it followed the full text of the Democratic platforms adopted in 1840 and 1844, and to the fifth resolution of the platform of 1844 the following sentence was added: “And for the gradual but certain extinction of the debt created by the prosecution of a just and necessary war after peaceful relations shall have been restored.” The Democratic platform of 1848, therefore, included the platforms of 1840 and 1844, with the following new declarations of faith:
Resolved, That the American Democracy place their trust in the intelligence, the patriotism, and the discriminating justice, of the American people.
Resolved, That the war with Mexico, provoked on her part by years of insult and injury, was commenced by her army crossing the Rio Grande, attacking the American troops, and invading our sister State of Texas; and that, upon all the principles of patriotism and the laws of nations, it is a just and necessary war upon our part, in which every American citizen should have shown himself on the side of his country, and neither morally nor physically, by word or deed, have given aid and comfort to the enemy.
Resolved, That we should be rejoiced at the assurance of a peace with Mexico, founded on the just principles of indemnity for the past and security for the future; but that, while the ratification of the liberal treaty offered to Mexico remains in doubt, it is the duty of the country to sustain the administration in every measure necessary to provide for the vigorous prosecution of the war, should that treaty be rejected.
Resolved, That the officers and soldiers who have carried the arms of their country into Mexico have crowned it with imperishable glory. Their unconquerable courage, their daring enterprise, their unfaltering perseverance and fortitude when assailed on all sides by innumerable foes—and that more formidable enemy, the diseases of the climate—exalt their devoted patriotism into the highest heroism, and give them a right to the profound gratitude of their country and the admiration of the world.
Resolved, That the Democratic National Convention of thirty States, composing the American Republic, tender their fraternal congratulations to the National Convention of the Republic of France, now assembled as the free suffrage representatives of the sovereignty of thirty-five millions of republicans, to establish governments on those eternal principles of equal rights, for which their Lafayette and our Washington fought side by side in the struggle for our national independence; and we would especially convey to them and to the whole people of France our earnest wishes for the consolidation of their liberties, through the wisdom that shall guide their counsels, on the basis of a democratic constitution, not derived from the grants or concessions of kings or dynasties, but originating from the only true source of political power recognized in the States of this Union: the inherent and inalienable rights of the people, in their sovereign capacity, to make and to amend their forms of government in such a manner as the welfare of the community may require.
Resolved, That with the recent development of this grand political truth—of the sovereignty of the people and their capacity and power for self-government, which is prostrating thrones and erecting republics on the ruins of despotism in the Old World—we feel that a high and sacred duty is devolved, with increased responsibility, upon the Democratic party of this country, as the party of the people, to sustain and advance among us constitutional liberty, equality, and fraternity, by continuing to resist all monopolies and exclusive legislation for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many; and by a vigilant and constant adherence to those principles and compromises of the Constitution, which are broad enough and strong enough to embrace and uphold the Union as it was, the Union as it is, and the Union as it shall be, in the full expansion of the energies and capacity of this great and progressive people.
Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded, through the American Minister at Paris, to the National Convention of the Republic of France.
Resolved, That the fruits of the great political triumph of 1844, which elected James K. Polk and George M. Dallas President and Vice-President of the United States, have fulfilled the hopes of the Democracy of the Union in defeating the declared purposes of their opponents to create a national bank; in preventing the corrupt and unconstitutional distribution of the land proceeds, from the common treasury of the Union, for local purposes; in protecting the currency and labor of the country from ruinous fluctuations, and guarding the money of the people for the use of the people; by the establishment of the constitutional treasury; in the noble impulse given to the cause of free trade, by the repeal of the tariff of 1842, and the creation of the more equal, honest, and productive tariff of 1846; and that, in our opinion, it would be a fatal error to weaken the hands of a political organization by which these great reforms have been achieved, and risk them in the hands of their known adversaries, with whatever delusive appeals they may solicit our surrender of that vigilance which is the only safeguard of liberty.
Resolved, That the confidence of the Democracy of the Union in the principles, capacity, firmness, and integrity of James K. Polk, manifested by his nomination and election in 1844, has been signally justified by the strictness of his adherence to sound Democratic doctrines, by the purity of purpose, the energy and ability which have characterized his administration in all our affairs at home and abroad; that we tender to him our cordial congratulations upon the brilliant success which has hitherto crowned his patriotic efforts, and assure him in advance that, at the expiration of his Presidential term, he will carry with him to his retirement the esteem, respect, and admiration of a grateful country.
Resolved, That this convention hereby present to the people of the United States Lewis Cass, of Michigan, as the candidate of the Democratic party for the office of President, and William O. Butler, of Kentucky, as the candidate of the Democratic party for Vice-President of the United States.
After the platform had been reported, Mr. Yancey, of Alabama, offered an additional resolution providing, “That the doctrine of non-interference with the rights of property of any portion of the people of this Confederacy, be it in the States or Territories thereof, by any other than the parties interested in them, is the true Republican doctrine recognized by this body,” but it was rejected by a vote of 216 to 36. Yancey’s resolution stated just what the convention believed, but what it did not dare express.
Notwithstanding the serious complications which confronted the Democrats at the opening of the campaign of 1848, they started out with every prospect of electing their national ticket. Cass was accepted as the ablest of the Democratic leaders of that day, and his nomination seemed to inspire the Democrats to earnest effort for his election. There was then no apprehension of the Van Buren bolt that grew to such immense proportions before the campaign closed, and made the defeat of Cass inevitable.
The Whigs were in an unfortunate position to go before the country. They had opposed the Mexican war vehemently, had protested against the acquisition of Mexican territory, and were certain to be divided on sectional lines arising from the additional Territories and future States our expansion was sure to give us. They were in the same position in which they found themselves in 1839, when they had to unite discordant elements of opposition to Van Buren to win the victory. The idolatry for Clay was yet cherished in all its intensity, and although enfeebled by age, he yielded to the earnest importunities of his friends, and announced himself as candidate for the nomination, though all intelligent and dispassionate Whig leaders knew that he was not available.
General Scott had been clouded by serious differences with the administration, in which his volubility had served his enemies a good purpose, and Webster never had a large popular following as a Presidential candidate. It was the first national convention that I ever witnessed, being then a boy editor in the interior and not old enough to vote for the men I supported. It was held in Chinese Hall, in Philadelphia, where the Continental Hotel now stands, and was dominated by the wonderfully able political leaders and statesmen which the South produced in ante-bellum days. They knew that they could not meet the slavery issue in the new Territories, and they presented General Taylor to the convention, and, without a pledge from Taylor himself, they formally pledged themselves to the convention that if not nominated he would not be the candidate of any other party, and would support the ticket.
The Whig National Convention convened at Philadelphia on the 7th of June, with a full representation from every State excepting Texas. Ex-Governor John M. Morehead, of North Carolina, presided. The conferences of the Whig leaders were anything but harmonious, and there were indications at times of an open and very serious rupture. Clay’s friends knew that it was the last battle that ever could be made for him. Their idolatry for Clay made them earnest, enthusiastic, even desperate, although most of them could not but foresee that his nomination was impossible, and that his election, if nominated, would be quite improbable.
The friends of Clay and Scott did not take kindly to General Taylor. He had been nominated some time before by a Native American National Convention that then represented but an inconsiderable following principally in the Eastern cities, and he had never distinctly declared his devotion to the Whig policy. Congressman L. D. Campbell, of Ohio, offered a resolution just before the balloting began, declaring that the convention should not entertain the candidacy of any man for President or Vice-President “who had not given assurances that he would abide by the action of the convention; that he would accept the nomination and that he would consider himself the candidate of the Whig party.” An angry debate was avoided by the President ruling the resolution out of order. Mr. Campbell appealed, but the appeal was lost. Mr. Fuller, of New York, then offered a resolution declaring that no man should be nominated for President unless “he stands pledged to support in good faith the nominees and to be the exponent of Whig principles.” This was also ruled out of order, and an appeal was tabled.
Even after Taylor had been nominated, Mr. Allen, of Massachusetts, who afterward bolted the party and supported Van Buren as a Free Soiler, offered a resolution declaring that the Whig party would abide by the nomination of Taylor on condition that he would accept the nomination as the candidate of the Whig party, and adhere to its great fundamental principles of no extension of slavery territory, no acquisition of foreign territory by conquest, protection to American industry, and opposition to Executive usurpation.” That was ruled out of order, as were several other resolutions aiming at some expression on the question of slavery.
The Southern Whig leaders saw that the only possible way to save the Whigs in the South was to nominate a Southern man; General Taylor was the only Southern man whom they believed could command favor in the North, and they wanted no expression from the convention on any of the delicate and perilous issues which confronted them. A number of leading Southern delegates, headed by Balie Peyton, of Tennessee, gave their formal pledge to the convention that General Taylor would accept the nomination and would abide by the decision of the party, and that he could safely be trusted as an exponent of the Whig policy. The convention had three ballots before a choice was reached for President, as follows:
| First. | Second. | Third. | Fourth. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zachary Taylor, La. | 111 | 118 | 133 | 171 |
| Henry Clay, Ky. | 97 | 86 | 74 | 32 |
| Winfield Scott, N. J. | 43 | 49 | 54 | 63 |
| Daniel Webster, Mass. | 22 | 22 | 17 | 14 |
| John McLean, Ohio. | 2 | — | — | — |
| John M. Clayton, Del. | 4 | 4 | 1 | — |
The nomination of Taylor was not made unanimous, as a number of the New England delegates and some from Ohio had decided not to support him under any circumstances, and they were later welcomed into the Free Soil Democracy that nominated Van Buren on the distinct antislavery extension platform. Among the most disgruntled of those who attended the convention was Horace Greeley. I met him then for the first time, and saw as much of him as I could, as he was my ideal fellow-editor. As soon as Taylor was nominated he started for New York, and I met him just as he was departing. He was evidently in great haste to make the Camden & Amboy train, and he was hurrying down Chestnut Street. His low-crowned, broad-brimmed, fuzzy fur hat set at an angle of 45 degrees on the back of his head, his profusion of shirt collar protected from wandering over his shoulders by an immense black silk handkerchief he used as a necktie, with the awkward knot serenely resting under his left ear, and his immense baggy black swallowtail coat, and the literal carpetbag he held by one handle, while the other lay down on the side of the bag, did not contribute much toward his genteel appearance. It was evident that he was mad clear through. In answer to my question as to how he liked the nomination of Taylor, he curtly answered, “Can’t say that I admire it,” and shuffled along toward the ferry, but the Tribune of the next morning had a terrific leader against Taylor, the title of which was “The Philadelphia Slaughterhouse,” and Greeley long hesitated about coming into the support of Taylor. He could not follow Van Buren, in whom he had no faith and against whom he had made his first great battle as an editor in 1840. Finally, seeing that the choice was between Cass and Taylor, Greeley decided to support the Whig candidate, and the Whigs of New York showed their appreciation of his action by nominating him to fill an unexpired term in Congress, to which he was elected by a large majority.
The contest for Vice-President had been very animated, and for some time before the meeting of the convention it seemed probable that Abbott Lawrence, a New England millionaire, might win it. He made the first attempt that had been ventured to gain a national nomination by the money-in-politics system, but after Taylor had been nominated for President his friends naturally looked to some representative supporter of Clay to be placed second on the ticket, and Fillmore led Lawrence on the 1st ballot and was nominated on the 2d. The ballots were as follows:
| 1st Ballot. | 2d Ballot. | |
|---|---|---|
| Millard Fillmore | 115 | 173 |
| Abbott Lawrence | 109 | 83 |
| Scattering | 50 | 4 |
George Evans, of Maine, and T. M. T. McKennen, Andrew Stewart, and John Sergeant, of Pennsylvania, all received a few votes. The nomination of Fillmore was made unanimous by the delegates who remained in the convention. The convention adopted no platform.
After the nomination of General Taylor for President an interesting, and what would now be regarded as a most ludicrous, incident occurred relating to the letter written by Governor Morehead, President of the Convention, to General Taylor advising him of his nomination for the Presidency. At that time the prepayment of postage was not compulsory, and unpaid letters were charged from five to ten times the present rate of letter postage. President Morehead promptly mailed a letter to General Taylor at Baton Rouge, Louisiana, notifying him of his nomination, but several weeks elapsed without any response. The telegraph was then in its infancy, and unthought of as an agent except in the most urgent emergency, and Governor Morehead finally sent a trusted friend to visit General Taylor and inquire why his letter of acceptance had not been given. Every political crank, as well as many others in the country, had been writing letters to General Taylor on the subject of the Presidency, very few of whom prepaid their letter postage. Old “Rough and Ready” became vexed beyond endurance at the tax imposed upon him, and he gave peremptory orders to the postmaster to send to the dead-letter office all letters addressed to him which were unpaid. Governor Morehead, assuming that a letter advising a man of his nomination for the Presidency, that carried with it a reasonably certain election, was a matter of quite as much interest to Taylor as to himself, had not prepaid the postage on his letter, and it had gone to the dead-letter office in accordance with Taylor’s general orders. When the mistake was discovered, the error was corrected by the sending of a second letter—postage prepaid—to General Taylor, to which he promptly responded, and the explanation given that the original letter had miscarried in the mails.
MILLARD FILLMORE
One of the interesting episodes of the convention was the arrival in Philadelphia, while the Whig convention was in session, of General Cass and his suite of Democratic leaders of national fame. Cass was on his way home from Washington, and the short time that he remained here he liberally divided public attention with the Whigs. An immense crowd welcomed Cass at the Jones Hotel, on Chestnut, above Sixth, and I there for the first time saw and heard General Cass, Senator Houston, Senator Allen, Senator Benton, and Representative Stevenson, all of whom spoke from the balcony of the hotel, and were cheered to the echo. I recall Houston as one of the handsomest men I have ever seen, with perfect physique, of heroic form, and a superbly chiselled face, portraying all the strength of the best type of the Roman. Cass was heavy and ponderous, but an able and attractive speaker, and I remember Benton well because his speech made him remembered as a colossal, perpendicular I. Allen was then notable as the “fog-horn,” and he could be heard a square beyond any of the others. A facetious delegate in the Whig convention, with admirable mock gravity, suggested that as the Democratic funeral train was in this city taking Cass’s body home by the lakes, the convention should adjourn.
As might have been expected, and as was greatly feared by both the leading parties, the slavery issue was at once made the vital one of the contest. The Democrats hoped that as the contest warmed up the Van Buren followers would acquiesce as they did in 1844, but what at first seemed to be a cloud on the Democratic horizon no bigger than a man’s hand soon after developed into a promised tempest. The Barnburners, who had withdrawn from the Democratic National Convention, called a State convention, to meet at Utica, N. Y., on the 22d of June, and invited delegates from other States for conference. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Ohio, and Wisconsin were represented, and after devoting two days to the discussion of the best policy to adopt, Van Buren was formally nominated for President, and Henry Dodge, of Wisconsin, for Vice-President, who declined, and supported Cass. Van Buren’s formal acceptance of the nomination followed soon thereafter, and it was the first definite notice to the regular Democrats that the Free-Soil Democracy was going to be earnestly arrayed against Democratic success.
Although Van Buren had accepted the first nomination, it was deemed wise as the campaign progressed to have a much more representative national body to make him the candidate, and a largely attended mass convention met at Buffalo on the 9th of August, over which Charles Francis Adams, of Massachusetts, presided, and which had representatives from seventeen States. On the formal ballot for President, Van Buren had 159 votes to 129 for John P. Hale, of New Hampshire, who had already been nominated by the Abolitionists, and Charles Francis Adams was nominated by acclamation for Vice-President. After this convention had made its nominations and declared its platform, Mr. Hale, the Abolition candidate, retired from the contest, and he and his followers gave a cordial support to Van Buren. The following was the Van Buren platform as declared by the Buffalo convention:
Whereas, We have assembled in convention, as a union of freemen, for the sake of freedom, forgetting all past political differences, in common resolve to maintain the rights of free labor against the aggressions of the slave power, and to secure free soil for a free people; and
Whereas, The political conventions recently assembled at Baltimore and Philadelphia, the one stifling the voice of a great constituency, entitled to be heard in its deliberations, and the other abandoning its distinctive principles for mere availability, have dissolved the national party organizations heretofore existing by nominating for the chief magistracy of the United States, under the slaveholding dictation, candidates, neither of whom can be supported by the opponents of slavery extension without a sacrifice of consistency, duty, and self-respect; and
Whereas, These nominations so made furnish the occasion and demonstrate the necessity of the union of the people under the banner of free democracy, in a solemn and formal declaration of their independence of the slave power, and of their fixed determination to rescue the Federal Government from its control:
Resolved, Therefore, that we, the people here assembled, remembering the example of our fathers in the days of the first Declaration of Independence, putting our trust in God for the triumph of our cause, and invoking His guidance in our endeavors to advance it, do now plant ourselves upon the national platform of freedom, in opposition to the sectional platform of slavery.
Resolved, That slavery in the several States of this Union which recognize its existence depends upon State laws alone, which cannot be repealed or modified by the Federal Government, and for which laws that Government is not responsible. We therefore propose no interference by Congress with slavery within the limits of any State.
Resolved, That the proviso of Jefferson, to prohibit the existence of slavery after 1800 in all the Territories of the United States, southern and northern; the votes of six States and sixteen delegates, in the Congress of 1784 for the proviso, to three States and seven delegates against it; the actual exclusion of slavery from the Northwestern Territory by the ordinance of 1787, unanimously adopted by the States in Congress; and the entire history of that period—clearly show that it was the settled policy of the nation not to extend, nationalize, or encourage, but to limit, localize, and discourage slavery; and to this policy, which should never have been departed from, the Government ought to return.
Resolved, That our fathers ordained the Constitution of the United States in order, among other great national objects, to establish justice, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty; but expressly denied to the Federal Government, which they created, all constitutional power to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due legal process.
Resolved, That, in the judgment of this convention, Congress has no more power to make a slave than to make a king; no more power to institute or establish slavery than to institute or establish a monarchy. No such power can be found among those specifically conferred by the Constitution, or derived by any just implication from them.
Resolved, That it is the duty of the Federal Government to relieve itself from all responsibility for the existence or continuance of slavery wherever the Government possesses constitutional authority to legislate on that subject, and is thus responsible for its existence.
Resolved, That the true and, in the judgment of this convention, the only safe means of preventing the extension of slavery into territory now free is to prohibit its existence in all such territory by an act of Congress.
Resolved, That we accept the issue which the slave power has forced upon us; and to their demand for more Slave States and more slave territory, our calm but final answer is, no more Slave States and no more slave territory. Let the soil of our extensive domains be ever kept free for the hardy pioneers of our own land, and the oppressed and banished of other lands, seeking homes of comfort and fields of enterprise in the New World.
Resolved, That the bill lately reported by the committee of eight in the Senate of the United States was no compromise, but an absolute surrender of the rights of the non-slaveholders of all the States; and while we rejoice to know that a measure which, while opening the door for the introduction of slavery into territories now free, would also have opened the door to litigation and strife among the future inhabitants thereof, to the ruin of their peace and prosperity, was defeated in the House of Representatives, its passage, in hot haste, by a majority embracing several Senators who voted in open violation of the known will of their constituents, should warn the people to see to it that their representatives be not suffered to betray them. There must be no more compromises with slavery; if made, they must be repealed.
Resolved, That we demand freedom and established institutions for our brethren in Oregon, now exposed to hardships, peril, and massacre by the reckless hostility of the slave power to the establishment of free government for free territory, and not only for them, but for our new brethren in New Mexico and California.
And whereas, It is due not only to this occasion, but to the whole people of the United States, that we should declare ourselves on certain other questions of national policy; therefore,
Resolved, That we demand cheap postage for the people; a retrenchment of the expenses and patronage of the Federal Government; the abolition of all unnecessary offices and salaries; and the election by the people of all civil officers in the service of the Government, so far as the same may be practicable.
Resolved, That river and harbor improvements, whenever demanded by the safety and convenience of commerce with foreign nations, or among the several States, are objects of national concern; and that it is the duty of Congress, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to provide therefor.
Resolved, That the free grant to actual settlers, in consideration of the expenses they incur in making settlements in the wilderness, which are usually fully equal to their actual cost, and of the public benefits resulting therefrom, of reasonable portions of the public lands, under suitable limitations, is a wise and just measure of public policy which will promote, in various ways, the interests of all the States of this Union; and we therefore recommend it to the favorable consideration of the American people.
Resolved, That the obligations of honor and patriotism require the earliest practicable payment of the national debt; and we are, therefore, in favor of such a tariff of duties as will raise revenue adequate to defray the necessary expenses of the Federal Government, and to pay annual instalments of our debt, and the interest thereon.
Resolved, That we inscribe on our banner, “Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor and Free Men,” and under it will fight on, and fight ever, until a triumphant victory shall reward our exertions.
The Presidential contest of 1848 for the first time presented the Native American party in the field with national candidates. It had its origin chiefly from the Philadelphia riots of 1844, resulting from a bitter feud between the Catholics and Protestants in the uptown river districts of Philadelphia. The organization of the Native American party immediately followed in Philadelphia, with opposition to Catholics and foreigners as its faith, and for nearly a decade it held the balance of power between the Whigs and Democrats in that city, and several times elected members of Congress. A like party was organized in New York, and attained some local success in that city. The national convention of the Native Americans was held in Philadelphia in September, 1847, and while it did not make a formal nomination, it recommended General Taylor for President and chose Henry A. S. Dearborn, of Massachusetts, for Vice-President. The party was unknown and unfelt in the contest, although it aided somewhat in giving the electoral vote of Pennsylvania to Taylor.
In November, 1847, the Liberty party, that had twice nominated and ran Birney as its candidate for President, met at New York and nominated John P. Hale, of New Hampshire, for President, and Leicester King, of Ohio, for Vice-President. When the Free-Soil Democracy developed huge proportions and nominated Van Buren, the old Abolition party was entirely absorbed in the Free-Soil organization. The Liberty League, made up of a small number of the more radical Abolitionists, held a meeting at Rochester on the 2d of June, 1848, and nominated Gerrit Smith, of New York, for President, and Rev. Charles E. Foote, of Michigan, for Vice-President; and what was called the Industrial Congress, made up of a handful of labor agitators, met at Philadelphia on the 13th of June, 1848, and nominated Gerrit Smith for President and William S. Waitt, of Illinois, for Vice-President. Neither the Hale Abolition party, the Liberty League Abolition party, nor the Industrial Congress party presented any electoral tickets of which I have been able to find any record. The canvass was a very earnest one, and the Whigs steadily grew in confidence as it progressed, while the Democrats were threatened on every side with disaster.
Pennsylvania broke from her Democratic moorings at the October election, when William F. Johnson, Whig, was elected Governor by 305 majority, and generally the preliminary elections were favorable to the Whigs. There were then thirty States, as Florida had come in March 3, 1845; Texas, December 29, 1845; Iowa, December 28, 1846, and Wisconsin, May 29, 1848, and the Presidential electors were then for the first time all chosen on the same day, with the single exception of Massachusetts. Van Buren did not carry a State, but he gave Taylor an easy triumph by the large Democratic defection he caused in the pivotal States. The following table exhibits the popular and electoral votes as declared by Congress:
| STATES. | Popular Vote. | Electors. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zachary Taylor, La. | Lewis Cass, Mich. | Martin Van Buren, N. Y. | Taylor. | Cass. | |
| Maine | 35,125 | 39,880 | 12,096 | — | 9 |
| New Hampshire | 14,781 | 27,763 | 7,560 | — | 6 |
| Vermont | 23,122 | 10,948 | 13,837 | 6 | — |
| Massachusetts | 61,070 | 35,281 | 38,058 | 12 | — |
| Rhode Island | 6,779 | 3,646 | 730 | 4 | — |
| Connecticut | 30,314 | 27,046 | 5,005 | 6 | — |
| New York | 218,603 | 114,318 | 120,510 | 36 | — |
| New Jersey | 40,015 | 36,901 | 829 | 7 | — |
| Pennsylvania | 185,513 | 171,176 | 11,263 | 26 | — |
| Delaware | 6,421 | 5,898 | 80 | 3 | — |
| Maryland | 37,702 | 34,528 | 125 | 8 | — |
| Virginia | 45,124 | 46,586 | 9 | — | 17 |
| North Carolina | 43,550 | 34,869 | ——— | 11 | — |
| South Carolina[13] | ——— | ——— | ——— | — | 9 |
| Georgia | 47,544 | 44,802 | ——— | 10 | — |
| Alabama | 30,482 | 31,363 | ——— | — | 9 |
| Florida | 3,116 | 1,847 | ——— | 3 | — |
| Mississippi | 25,922 | 26,537 | ——— | — | 6 |
| Louisiana | 18,217 | 15,370 | ——— | 6 | — |
| Texas | 4,509 | 10,668 | ——— | — | 4 |
| Arkansas | 7,588 | 9,300 | ——— | — | 3 |
| Missouri | 32,671 | 40,077 | ——— | — | 7 |
| Tennessee | 64,705 | 58,419 | ——— | 13 | — |
| Kentucky | 67,141 | 49,720 | ——— | 12 | — |
| Ohio | 138,360 | 154,775 | 35,354 | — | 23 |
| Michigan | 23,940 | 30,687 | 10,389 | — | 5 |
| Indiana | 69,907 | 74,745 | 8,100 | — | 12 |
| Illinois | 53,047 | 56,300 | 15,774 | — | 9 |
| Wisconsin | 13,747 | 15,001 | 10,418 | — | 4 |
| Iowa | 11,084 | 12,093 | 1,126 | — | 4 |
| Totals | 1,360,099 | 1,220,544 | 291,263 | 163 | 127 |
All parties made earnest efforts to control the popular branch of Congress, and national interest naturally centred in the Wilmot district of Pennsylvania, as he was the author of the Wilmot Proviso, that was the fountain of the slavery dispute. He had been twice elected to Congress in what was then a strong Democratic district, composed of Bradford, Susquehanna, and Tioga, but which have been among the strongest Republican counties in the State since the organization of that party. The district had given over 2000 majority for Polk against Clay, and although Wilmot was the only member of Congress from Pennsylvania who voted for the tariff of 1846, he was re-elected in the fall of that year by a decided majority.
When Van Buren was nominated, Wilmot openly declared himself as a Free-Soil Democrat, but he received the regular Democratic nomination for Congress in his district. The Cass pro-slavery Democrats bolted and nominated Jonah Brewster as a Simon-pure Democrat, and the Whigs nominated Henry W. Tracy, confidently expecting to elect him. Wilmot was triumphantly elected, receiving 8597 votes to 4795 for Tracy, Whig, and 922 for Brewster, Cass Democrat. He also nearly evenly divided the Democratic vote of Bradford and Tioga between Cass and Van Buren, giving Taylor a large plurality over Cass in the district.
While the Wilmot Free-Soil Democrats bolted on the Democratic national ticket, they generally supported Morris Longstreth, the Democratic candidate for Governor, who was defeated by Johnson in October by 305 majority. The re-election of Wilmot in one of the strong Democratic districts of Pennsylvania greatly strengthened the antislavery cause throughout the country. He and his followers fell back into the regular Democratic line in 1852 in support of Pierce, and they finally severed their relations with the Democratic party in 1854, provoked by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and in 1856 they carried the Northern counties of the State by large majorities for Fremont.
Cass carried every State west of the Pennsylvania line, including Ohio, where the antislavery sentiment of the Western Reserve was unwilling to accept a large slaveholder as a candidate for President. Corwin, the most brilliant and impressive of the stump-speakers of that day, made desperate efforts to save the State, but Van Buren received over 35,000 votes, and Cass won the electors by a plurality of over 16,000. I once heard Corwin in his inimitable way tell the story of that campaign. The people of Ohio in that day were taught their politics by mass-meetings, and any one of the audience was entirely at liberty to interrogate the speaker. Corwin, in his plausible and fascinating way, was trying to explain how the antislavery cause would be best served by electing a slaveholder President, when a tall, lank countryman, sitting on the fence, put a very pointed question to him, that he felt unable to answer. He tried to meet it in a humorous way, but only aroused his interrogator to make a more pointed inquiry of him, that Corwin could not answer. He was one of the few orators who could convulse an audience with his superb humor, and his facial expression was at times even more mirth provoking than his language. The question involved the negro issue, and Corwin had an unusually swarthy complexion, and he unhorsed his inquirer by saying to his audience with an expression that powerfully accentuated his remark: “I submit, fellow-citizens, whether it is proper to put such a question to a man of my complexion,” and the dispute ended in boisterous laughter and cheers for Corwin. The Whigs won easy victories in all the debatable States of the South; and General Taylor came to the Presidency knowing less about how his election had been accomplished than any man who had ever been called to the Chief Magistracy of the Republic. Thus was Martin Van Buren avenged for the Southern betrayal of 1844.
FRANKLIN PIERCE