Our Presidents and how we make them

by Alexander K. McClure

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: