A Crucial Element of Democracy

This is a blog by Robert Gutierrez ...
While often taken for granted, civics education plays a crucial role in a democracy like ours. This Blog is dedicated to enticing its readers into taking an active role in the formulation of the civics curriculum found in their local schools. In order to do this, the Blog is offering a newer way to look at civics education, a newer construct - liberated federalism or federation theory. Daniel Elazar defines federalism as "the mode of political organization that unites separate polities within an overarching political system by distributing power among general and constituent governments in a manner designed to protect the existence and authority of both." It depends on its citizens acting in certain ways which Elazar calls federalism's processes. Federation theory, as applied to civics curriculum, has a set of aims. They are:
*Teach a view of government as a supra federated institution of society in which collective interests of the commonwealth are protected and advanced.
*Teach the philosophical basis of government's role as guardian of the grand partnership of citizens at both levels of individuals and associations of political and social intercourse.
*Convey the need of government to engender levels of support promoting a general sense of obligation and duty toward agreed upon goals and processes aimed at advancing the common betterment.
*Establish and justify a political morality which includes a process to assess whether that morality meets the needs of changing times while holding true to federalist values.
*Emphasize the integrity of the individual both in terms of liberty and equity in which each citizen is a member of a compacted arrangement and whose role is legally, politically, and socially congruent with the spirit of the Bill of Rights.
*Find a balance between a respect for national expertise and an encouragement of local, unsophisticated participation in policy decision-making and implementation.
Your input, as to the content of this Blog, is encouraged through this Blog directly or the Blog's email address: gravitascivics@gmail.com .
NOTE: This blog has led to the publication of a book. The title of that book is TOWARD A FEDERATED NATION: IMPLEMENTING NATIONAL CIVICS STANDARDS and it is available through Amazon in both ebook and paperback versions.

Friday, July 30, 2021

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 .

No comments:

Post a Comment