REACTING TO POPULAR EXPANSION

 

Much happened in American history during the time generally referred to as the antebellum years.  Usually, that period is the time between the end of the “era of good feeling” – following the War of 1812 – and the onslaught of the Civil War in 1861.  Within those nearly fifty years, the nation had the rise and fall of a major political party that technically produced four presidents – two elected as presidents and two assuming that office from the position of vice president upon the deaths of the presidents they served.

The timeline this blog is reporting – this is the third posting doing so – has already reviewed the first of these cases, the election of William Henry Harrison and elevation of John Tyler.  Given the brevity of Harrison’s time in the White House, that term of office basically belonged to Tyler. 

In the last posting, one sees that that term was characterized by Tyler opposing key Whig policy proposals, those being the re-chartering of a national bank and higher tariff rates.  Basically, he can be considered a reluctant Whig or as a Democrat in Whig’s clothing.  This was so much the case that he was ushered out of the party.  To underline that fact, the party refused to nominate him for another term in 1844.  With that, this timeline begins its next entry in describing how the Whigs further proceeded during these antebellum years:

1844-1847

The Whigs in the next election season faced a divided Democratic Party.  Former president and leading candidate, Martin Van Buren, came out in opposition to the annexation of Texas through a proposed treaty with the self-proclaimed independent Texas – drawn up by the former Secretary of State, John C. Calhoun – and eventually rejected by the Senate. 

Unfortunately for Van Buren, the rank-and-file Democrats supported that proposal, along with the acquisition of Oregon (a British possession).  They were able to deprive Van Buren the nomination and instead they went for the relatively unknown candidate, James K. Polk, who was promoting expansion.  Polk’s main link to the national political stage was his friendship with former President Andrew Jackson, who was still alive.  Polk was fully onboard with the proposed acquisitions of both Texas and Oregon.

As for the Whigs, they were unified going into the ’44 election.  Given his disappointments in previous years, Clay finally saw a clear way to attain the Whig nomination and he did so unopposed, with a united party behind him.  But one should remember that, as backdrop, the nation was in the grips of severe depression and the Whigs, however tenuously the claim could be made, was the party in power.

On election day, Clay’s doomed fate in attaining the presidency persisted.  Polk captured the imagination of Southern voters with his position on annexation – in the case of Texas, that meant the addition of a slave state – and was aided with animosity among certain anti-Whig groups in the North especially Catholics and foreign-born voters.[1]  Bottom line, Polk won with only 49.1% of the popular vote but with 170 Electoral College votes over Clay’s 105.  If Clay could have gotten a few more votes in New York (less than 2%), he would have won the election.

Just before Tyler’s last days in office, a coalition of Southern Whigs and Democrats issued a joint resolution favoring the annexation of Texas, and it became a state in 1845.  But Mexico withheld recognizing that Texas was no longer part of Mexico until 1848 and only then as a result of the Mexican-American War. 

This blog has already reported on that war and its outcomes.[2]  In sum, Polk, as president, was victorious in conducting that war and then went on to negotiate with the British the acquisition of the Oregon Territory which resulted in the statehoods of both Oregon and Washington.  That is, in his one four-year term, Polk maneuvered the largest increase in the nation’s land area – over a million square miles.

In terms of the Whig reaction to these developments, it was a token opposition to the war claiming Polk instigated it by ordering General Zachary Taylor to the Rio Grande area, but they went along with voting for the declaration of war that initiated the hostilities against Mexico.  In other areas, Polk reestablished Van Buren’s Independent Treasury System and successfully supported lower tariffs.  This helped the Whigs to reenergize themselves in opposition to these policies.

One result of that mobilization, especially among Northern Whigs, was a push to back a Democratic proposal by Congressman David Wilmot – the “Wilmot Proviso” – that called for the prohibition of slavery in the newly acquired lands.  Support for the “proviso” also came from Northern Democrats but it did not make it through the Senate.  The proposal was part of a Polk initiative to offer $2 million for a down payment to Mexico to purchase California as part of the treaty with that nation.[3]

Beyond this limited agreement over the expansion of slavery, the two parties had clear divisions concerning land expansion – Whigs generally opposed territorial acquisition.  Despite that, they, in the Senate, voted, in 1848, for the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, so as to end the war with Mexico.

As the next election season approached, Polk’s energetic term was coming to an end – he was not going to seek reelection.  The Whigs faced whether they looked backward for yet another Clay candidacy or forward by anointing yet another war hero.  The former promised an economic based campaign and the latter meant Whigs swallowing a level of acceptance for the Mexican War.  That acceptance would give the territorial expansion made possible by Polk’s efforts the party’s implied blessings.  In addition, the war hero, Zachary Taylor, was voicing antagonism toward Whig policies. 

The process by which the party decided for Taylor began in 1847 in that Clay led the Whigs against Polk’s war and the president’s policy to acquire territories.  These sentiments were particularly strong among Northern Whigs.  Other rumblings were also heard from other quarters including a level of division among the Democrats. 

That is, still in the mix of potential candidates was former president Martin Van Buren.  The next posting will begin with a look at the ’48 campaign and how this mix of characters – Van Buren, Clay, Taylor, and others – made for an active election season.  It will go a long way in setting the stage for the Whigs’ final acts on the American political stage.

---

[1] Michael F. Holt, The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party: Jacksonian Politics and the Onset of the Civil War (Oxford University Press, 1999).

[2] See Robert Gutierrez, “A Mixed Bag,” Gravitas:  A Voice for Civics (a blog, July 20, 2021), accessed July 29, 2021, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2021_07_18_archive.html .

[3] The treaty ending the Mexican-American War was signed in Mexico.  The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed on February 2, 1848.  The treaty called for the transfer of 55 percent of Mexican territory to the US.  Parts of the following states came from that area:  Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah. See “On This Day, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo Is Signed,” Constitution Daily, National Constitution Center (February 2, 2021), accessed July 30, 2021, https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-the-treaty-of-guadalupe-hidalgo-is-signed .

AND TYLER NOT

 

This posting continues the timeline that the last posting began.  Starting with the year 1824, this timeline continues here with the span of years, 1837-1840.  Until this point, the Whig Party has, despite challenges, been able to nationally organize a loose party structure.  Internally, though, it had deep divisions between its northern and southern contingencies with opposite views as to the advisability of re-chartering a national bank and tariffs. 

After setting up a divisive strategy in the 1836 election, Whigs failed to deprive Jackson’s hand-picked successor and Democratic nominee, Martin Van Buren, from winning the White House.  They faced on election day a healthy economy and a popular Jackson leaving the presidency.

The American public was not apt to shift to a new party even if the Whigs were able to gain control of the Senate in 1833.  In 1836, they lost to Van Buren who garnered 51 percent of the popular vote but 57.8 percent of the Electoral College vote (170 out of 294).  The unavoidable message was that the Whigs needed to find a way to unite if they wanted to capture the presidency – the ultimate prize.

1836-1840 (continued)

          Van Buren had barely enough time to learn his way around the White House before his fortunes took a serious turn against him.  As is often the case – and little understood at the time – the economy was carrying various price bubbles – that occurs when prices of assets are significantly higher than their financial conditions justify.  Specifically, land and cotton prices were too high, and they collapsed, meaning many lost a great deal of money once those prices fell downward.  Conditions were further contractionary when British lending firms became restrictive in their policies.[1]

          Upon reflection, many blame President Jackson’s anti national bank policy and the resulting inability to regulate governmental spending as a factor greasing the way toward panic among investors.  This all led to bank runs that hit their peak on May 10, 1837, when New York City banks announced they were depleted of gold and silver.  That meant specie (coin money) could not back paper money (commercial paper).  Despite a brief recovery in 1838, the ensuing depression persisted, from start to finish, for seven years.

          So severe was the downturn, that half the banks in the country had to close.  Real prosperity didn’t reestablish itself until the California Gold Rush (1850) provided enough gold to allow enough specie to flow.  During the depression, land prices plummeted, industrial workers lost their jobs, and as already pointed out, mass bank failures took place.  Such an economic debacle did not reoccur in the US until the Great Depression of the 1930s. 

Van Buren reacted by starting an Independent Treasury system that did little to meet the crisis.  Led by William Cabell Rives, a good number of Democrats sought a more aggressive federal government response and found themselves attracted to the Whig Party.  As indicated in previous posting, Calhoun, a Democrat, was a lukewarm member of the party and the Whigs were able to unite behind William Henry Harrison (Tippecanoe), the war hero, in 1839.  But this was not an automatic choice.

As late as 1838, Henry Clay was the frontrunner among the nationally known Whigs.  He led the criticism of Van Buren’s policy regarding the depression.  But as mentioned above, the economy took a brief upturn in ’38 and Harrison gained support around the country including the South. 

It took five ballots for Harrison to win the nomination at the Whig convention.  To gin up support in the South, the convention also nominated the states’ rightist, John Tyler, for vice president.  That ticket – “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too” – won 53 percent of the popular vote and a healthy majority (234 out of 294) of the Electorate College vote.

1841-1844

          Even though Henry Clay’s ambition to become president was frustrated, he saw a Whig presidency, as Harrison was to be inaugurated, to be an ideal development.  He in the Senate could push for a national bank, institute a program by which to distribute federal land sales moneys to the states, legislate a federal bankruptcy law, and increase tariff rates.[2]  But all this planning came to naught when, as already pointed out in this blog, Harrison fell ill and died one month into his term.

            This, of course, elevated the Southerner, John Tyler, and he will be against a national bank and raising tariff rates.  This was most noted when Tyler vetoed a national bank bill in August 1841, relying on the argument that the bill was unconstitutional.  Congress passed a second bill tailored to meet Tyler’s objection over the first bill, but he also vetoed it. 

This was too much for the Whig leaders and they expelled Tyler from the party and even considered impeaching him.  This last proposal was abandoned from fear it would harm the party.[3]  Tyler’s whole Cabinet resigned and that included Daniel Webster.  This in its way forced Tyler to look for Democrats to fill the vacancies in his Cabinet and in other key positions. 

And with that political stew and the ongoing poor economic conditions, it could not be a surprise that the Whigs were anxious to look elsewhere for a presidential candidate.  This time, Clay was well situated to take up the mantle to challenge Tyler.  In addition, Tyler was not shy in adding to his anti-Whig biases and policies. 

The resignations from the Cabinet took place in May 1843.  This move occurred just after the Webster-Ashburton Treaty was ironed out and settled border disputes with Britain.  Tyler, with that treaty, decided he would push for the annexation of Texas.  This was seen as adding a slave state to the Union.  Such a move discomforted leaders of both parties since it would bring the slave issue to the fore. 

This was the next step in the confusing history of how Texas landed up being an American state that even involved, at this point, the British.  For purposes here it need be only cited that Tyler issued this annexation proposal that further antagonized his former Whig colleagues.[4]  And with that, enough was enough, and the Whigs nominated Clay for the presidency in 1844.  The next posting will start with the that campaign.

---

[1] Jane Knodell, “Rethinking the Jacksonian Economy:  The Impact of the 1832 Bank Veto on Commercial Banking,” The Journal of Economic History, 66, 3 (September 2006), 541-574 AND Richard H. Timberlake, Jr., “Panic of 1837,” in Business Cycles and Depressions:  An Encyclopedia, David, eds. Gasner and Thomas F. Cooley (New York, NY:  Garland Publishing, 1997), 514-516, accessed July 26, 2021, https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/143687 .  

[2] Michael F. Holt, The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party: Jacksonian Politics and the Onset of the Civil War (Oxford University Press, 1999).

[3] Norma Lois Peterson, The Presidencies of William Henry Harrison and John Tyler (Lawrence, KS:  University Press of Kansas, 1989).

[4] It should be noted, Texas claimed its independence from Mexico in 1836, but Mexico did not recognize that status.  Instead, Mexico identified Texas as a state in rebellion.  That did not inhibit the Tyler Administration, through its Secretary of State, John C. Calhoun, to work out an annexation agreement with Texas in 1844.  The Mexican-American War did not begin until 1846, but Texas became a state in 1845.  As stated in this posting, this development is complicated.