USA > New York > History of the state of New York, political and governmental, Vol. V > Part 15
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30
Coinciding with the discussion about Texas was that in relation to settling the northwestern (Oregon) boundary dispute with Great Britain. The Oregon Country, so called (comprising the present States of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho), had long been under "joint occupation" by the United States and Great Britain, pending diplomatic adjustment of the bound- ary. Diplomatic negotiations were still in progress
226
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
throughout Tyler's administration. There was no indi- cation as to the probable outcome. The people were impatient for a decision, and a large element demanded the full amount of the American territorial claim, reaching to the parallel 54° 40'.
Therefore at the opening of the Presidential cam- paign of 1844 two immensely important territorial questions, affecting the destiny of the nation, were under consideration. The Oregon controversy, no matter what boundary line should ultimately be drawn, would necessarily result in our acquiring title to a new domain at the north, from which slavery would be excluded. The Texas dispute involved the acceptance or refusal of a new domain at the south, in which slavery had already been established by its inhabitants. In both matters the rights and fortunes of enterprising and brave American pioneers and home-builders, who were looking to our government for sympathy and support, were at stake.
On May 27, 1844, five weeks after the submission of the Texas treaty to the Senate, the Democratic national convention met in Baltimore. The platform declared for both annexation of Texas and insistence upon our claim to the whole of Oregon. It had been supposed that Van Buren would again be nominated for Presi- dent, and he had a majority on the first ballot, though far from the necessary two-thirds. He was known to be opposed to immediate Texan annexation, and his selection was therefore impossible. James K. Polk, of Tennessee, was nominated unanimously on the ninth ballot. The Whigs in their platform were silent on the
227
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Texas question, besides ignoring the subjects of the Bank and internal improvements, and even referring to the tariff in only evasive terms. Their candidate, Clay, endeavored during the canvass to accomodate himself to various views concerning Texas, with the result that while many people were glad to credit him with "statesmanlike" intentions it was not clear how he would act if elected. It was generally understood, however, that the Whig policy was against war with Mexico. The election was decided by the vote of New York, which gave Polk a plurality of about 5,000- Clay's defeat being attributed to the action of the third party Abolitionists, who polled in that State 15,812 votes for their Presidential nominee, James G. Birney. The Electoral vote of the nation was, Polk, 170; Clay, 105. The Democrats elected a majority in each branch of Congress.
Following this decisive result there was no longer any question about Texas. Resistance in Congress to the Democratic program ceased to be of any avail, and when the Tyler administration went out of office (March 4, 1845) the annexation had been made an accomplished fact. The expected war with Mexico ensued, terminating with the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which was proclaimed by President Polk on July 4, 1848, the United States acquiring all the huge territory westward from the Louisiana Purchase, with the Pacific coast from the south to the north line of California. Six years afterward the Gadsden Pur- chase, enlarging the southern bounds of Arizona and New Mexico, was added as the result of peaceful nego-
228
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
tiation with Mexico by the Democratic administration of Pierce.
As for Oregon, the aggressive attitude that had been expressed in 1844 by the Democratic campaign cry of "Fifty-four forty or fight!" gave way to a more moder- ate disposition under the responsibilities involved in the final treaty arrangements with England. The bound- ary was fixed at the forty-ninth parallel, in conformity to the irreducible claims of both countries.' No dis- passionate American writer has ever taken exception to that adjustment, except by way of regret that the Polk administration was debarred by the previous diplomatic course of our government from urging a claim to Van- couver Island.
It was under Democratic initiative and action that the United States secured the entire portion of its terri- tory extending from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, as well as the valuable Florida cession.
The Mexican War led directly and instantly to a revival of the political slavery question, which, as we have seen, had been originally settled by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. That Compromise, based on the admission of Missouri as a slave State but the exclusion of slavery from all other western territory (as existing in 1820) north of 36° 30', was of course inapplicable, except by new Congressional act, to the tremendous expanse added to the national possessions in the years 1845-48. Anti-slavery sentiment had greatly increased at the north, and was sternly opposed to any farther spread of the slave system; while at the south there was an unalterable resolve not only to maintain the slavery
229
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
institution, but to extend it into the new western regions so as to assure the erection of more slave States and preserve the south's relative political strength in the Union.
The south considered itself to have rightful oppor- tunities and expectations of slavery development in the Union. But the great majority of the northern people refused to recognize any slavery rights except those that for necessary reasons could not be contradicted. It was not proposed to disturb or limit slavery in the States where it existed, but all the projects to extend it caused instant trouble.
The reasons for absolute non-interference with slavery in the States where it then existed were consti- tutional. They could not possibly be overcome save by forcibly disrupting the Union, which none wanted to do except the extreme Abolitionists of the Garrisonian school, who regarded the Constitution as "a covenant with death and an agreement with hell." As a matter of fact, when finally slavery was abolished in the south- ern States, the Union had already been disrupted by force, and the only question respecting it was whether it could be restored by the same agency.
Moreover, the most essential and precious guarantee of our whole political system, that of the exclusive and inviolable right of the several States to the control of their local affairs, so far as powers had not been expressly surrendered to the Federal government, required that the Federal government should let slavery strictly alone in the States where it was an established institution. It was the separation of State rights and
230
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
functions from national powers and pretensions that alone had made democracy successful and ultimately given it such supremacy that any other institutional plan was unimaginable. Interference with slavery in the States that chose to have it was incompatible with guaranteed State rights; the matter was simply unde- batable, except on the conjectural basis of a constitu- tional amendment nationally prohibiting or discrim- inating against slavery-and how could such an amendment, needing three-fourths of the States for its ratification, be procured with half the States surely against it?
But the positiveness and total irreconcilability of the conflicting opinions and preferences on the fundamental question of slavery made it imperative to find a polit- ical solution in relation to the future States at the west. Civil war was at that time not thought of; the idea was too monstrous; both sections were unanimously for the Union. The only solution was an agreement of some kind. Pending the official termination of the Mexican War there was much discussion in Congress, and various proposals were introduced. The only substan- tive results were the admission of Texas as a slave State (1845) and the organization of Oregon as a free Territory (1848).
From the Congressional debate, however, there was evolved an exceedingly striking measure of policy, the Wilmot Proviso, which, though abortive in the end, had a profound influence upon politics. This was a north- ern Democratic measure in its origin, but received substantial support also from the northern wing of the
231
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Whig party. Introduced in the House (1846) by David Wilmot, a Democratic member from Pennsyl- vania, it passed on final consideration by 87 to 64 and was many times reaffirmed by that body, but was never accepted by the Senate. It was intended to be a joint resolution, authorized President Polk to initiate nego- tiations with Mexico, and added :
"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 which may be negotiated be- tween 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 the said territory, except for crime, whereof the party shall be first duly convicted."
The rival Presidential candidates in 1848 were Lewis Cass, of Michigan, Democrat, and General Zachary Taylor, of Louisiana, Whig. On the new slavery questions neither party had as yet a program of exact measures. Consistently with the indecisive results in Congress, party attitudes were still subject to delibera- tion, and every latitude was allowed to diverse views.
In previous Democratic platforms the general prin- ciples had been laid down that the Federal government was "one of limited powers, derived solely from the Constitution"; that it was "inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful constitutional powers"; that Con- gress had "no power under the Constitution to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States"; and that such States were "the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs not prohibited by the Constitution." These declarations
232
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
were now renewed, and their implications in relation to the slavery discussion were given increased signifi- cance by announcing that the party proposed to main- tain, as a high and sacred duty, "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 expan- sion of the energies and capacity of this great and pro- gressive people." In other words, the Democratic party declared itself to be strictly, absolutely, and unconditionally a Union party; and though the sec- tional subject was not specified in that connection everyone knew it was the sectional subject that was the occasion for the pronouncement.
Besides deciding to leave the details of the slavery question to the future, the Democratic convention of 1848 declined to enter into condemnations of particular propositions and party elements that were regarded with disfavor in certain quarters. It voted down a resolution that denounced the Wilmot Proviso as bad Democratic doctrine, and it also took an impartial course as between two contesting delegations from New York, one of which favored the Wilmot Proviso and the other opposed it-offering seats to both on equal terms. But neither of the factions was willing to accept such an arrangement, and New York was consequently un- represented in the convention. The New York support- ers of the Proviso-popularly known as Barnburners because it was said they were like the wrathy Dutchman who burned his barn to exterminate the rats and mice
7
DANIEL MANNING
Daniel Manning, secretary of the treasury; born at Albany, May 16, 1831; entered the employ of the Albany Argus as office boy at the age of 12; by successive grades rose to the presidency of the company in 1873 ; active in politics from 1872; delegate to every state convention from 1874 until 1884; secretary of the democratic state committee, 1879-1880; vice- chairman, 1881-1884; delegate to the democratic national con- ventions of 1876, 1880, 1884; secretary of the treasury under President Cleveland from March 1885 until April 1887, when he resigned; died at Albany, N. Y. December 24, 1887.
WILLIAM COLLINS WHITNEY
William Collins Whitney, ex-secretary of the navy; born at Conway, Mass., July 15, 1841; graduated from Yale college, 1863 and Harvard law school, 1865; admitted to the bar and practiced law in New York City; assisted in organizing the young men's democratic club, 1871; active against the Tweed ring; defeated for district attorney of New York county, 1872; corporation counsel of New York City, 1875; secretary of the navy in President Cleveland's cabinet, 1885; died in New York City, February 2, 1904.
233
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
that infested it-bolted the Democratic national ticket, and from that action resulted the call for the celebrated Buffalo convention which established the Free Soil, or Free Democratic, party and nominated Van Buren as a separate Presidential candidate on a platform of intense and comprehensive antagonism to slavery.
While the Democrats in 1848 were torn by factional differences, due to the bold maintenance of anti-slavery principles by an important part of their following, the Whigs were extremely, indeed minutely, careful to keep from even the appearance of being concerned about principles or disturbed by discordant elements of any kind. Their national convention adopted no plat- form. Although they had every hope of winning the election, they refused to do justice to their tried leader, Clay, denying him the nomination because they thought it safer to have a perfectly colorless candidate, General Taylor.
The Wilmot Proviso defeated the Democrats. In the pivotal State of New York their regular nominee, Cass, had only 114,318 votes; Van Buren, Free Demo- crat, had 120,510; and Taylor, Whig, had 218,603. New York had up to that time been a reliably Demo- cratic State. So had Pennsylvania, which also went against Cass. Taylor carried seven northern and eight southern States, with a total Electoral vote of 163; Cass won in eight States of the north and seven of the south, and had 127 votes.
CHAPTER VI THE PARTY OF THE UNION
1849-1857
A GREAT event brought to an end the mere experimental discussion and inconclusive Con- gressional treatment of the various phases of the slavery question, and inaugurated those positive measures which, with the constantly increasing embit- terment of feeling that they produced, resulted in the Civil War. Gold was discovered in California in 1848, and that region of formerly sparse population and inconsequential development and enterprise was rapidly settled by as energetic and masterful a people as have ever wrought mighty and beneficent changes. In little more than a year California showed a sufficient number of inhabitants to be indisputably entitled to admission as a State of the Union. Without resorting to the dignified and leisurely preliminary of Territorial organization under Federal auspices, the people, in October, 1849, held a convention which adopted a State Constitution. This Constitution excluded slavery from the proposed State. It was popularly approved at a special election, the vote being 12,066 to 811, and appli- cation was made to Congress for admission.
-
At once it was seen that the granting of California's
234
235
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
application would involve two startling consequences : First, it would give the north sixteen States as against the south's fifteen, and therefore destroy the balance of the sections; and Second, it would make impossible the projection of the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific, a proceeding favored by many statesmen of that day, and strongly urged by the south, as an ideal solu- tion of the sectional problem. Thus the proposed admission would enhance the political power and pres- tige of the north and doubtless stimulate that section to seek still further gains against slavery. The south understood that the wish of California could not be denied consistently with democratic principles, yet was in no mood to yield advantages to the north without equivalents. The situation was full of danger for the Union. Although thoroughly desiring to stay in the Union on equal terms for slavery, or at least terms guaranteeing the future security and influential position of the institution, the south unalterably preferred dis- union to sacrifice or imperilment of its own political power and fundamental domestic system. ,
The Compromise measures of 1850 were accordingly conceived, agreed to by the leaders of both political parties, and after long and strenuous debate passed by the two branches of Congress and signed by the Whig President, Millard Fillmore (formerly Vice-President, who had succeeded to the Chief-Magistracy upon the death of President Taylor, July 9, 1850). In brief, the Compromises provided as follows: 1. Admission of California without slavery and without reduction or division of its territory. 2. Organization of two new
236
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Territories, Utah and New Mexico, out of the remain- ing part of the domain ceded by Mexico; these Terri- tories, and the States later rising from them, to have the right to establish or exclude slavery without interposi- tion by Congress. 3. A more effective Fugitive Slave law, to be strictly enforced by the Federal officials and courts, and requiring all the inhabitants of every State and Territory to assist slaveowners in recovering their escaped negroes. 4. Addition of a large part of Texas to New Mexico upon payment of a money indemnity by the Federal government to Texas. 5. Abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, but no disturbance of the existing status of that institution.
The gain for the south of the Fugitive Slave law and the right to an equal chance for slavery in the new Territories was regarded, so far as active anti-slavery opinion was concerned, as the commanding feature of the Compromises; and it was active anti-slavery opin- ion, incessantly opposing all gains for the south and insisting on Charles Sumner's dictum, "Freedom national, slavery sectional," that was to dominate the political situation ultimately. But in 1850 the over- mastering desire of the country was for sectional har- mony within and for the Union. Clay and Webster, the great leaders of the Whigs, were whole-heartedly for the Compromises, inclusive of the Fugitive Slave and Utah-New Mexico bills :- Clay was indeed the chief originator and foremost champion of the measures as a whole, and Webster, as the head of the cabinet, fully approved President Fillmore's signature of all the acts.
237
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Nevertheless, the Whig party, by its vacillating, timid, and scrupulously expedient course had become a very uncertain factor; the only unquestionable thing about it was its relative weakness with the people. It had never really led the country, and all the successive events demonstrated that it never could. The Com- promises were accepted by the general public, north and south, as settling the slavery controversy, and a consistent policy and administration for the future were therefore expected. The preservation of the Union was believed to be assured by the accomodations that had been made, provided there should be no reopening of the slavery question in a manner to pro- voke secessionist action at the south; and as the Demo- cratic party had the complete confidence of the country for its representative position and effective strength in support of the Union, its triumph over the Whigs at the Presidential election of 1852 was so great as to resemble its early successes against the Federalists.
Yet the official attitude of the Whigs on slavery in the 1852 campaign was wholly identical with that of the Democrats. Both parties declared unqualifiedly for the Compromises as affording a final settlement of the controversy, and against all attempts to revive sec- tional differences; and the Whig platform added : "We will maintain this system [of the settlement] as essential to the nationality of the Whig party and the integrity of the Union." The people, however, as had always been the case save under certain peculiar tem- porary conditions, were much more strongly inclined toward the Democrats than the Whigs on the principal
238
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
issues of government. Franklin Pierce, of New Hamp- shire, the Democratic candidate, received 254 Electoral votes, against 42 for the Whig nominee, General Win- field Scott, of New Jersey. The only States carried by Scott were Kentucky, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Vermont-two southern and two northern. The Democrats retained the Senate by a very large majority and elected more than two-thirds of the members of the House of Representatives.
This result was not a sectional victory in any sense. The sectional question, on account of the absolute Unionism of both the great parties, was not at issue. It was a victory, of overwhelming proportions, for the Democratic party, after calm and fair consideration by the country of the relative merits of the rival organiza- tions in view of the lack of any difference between them on the sectional question. The Free Democratic, or Free Soil, party declined greatly in strength. Its can- didate, John P. Hale, of New Hampshire, received in the nation only 156,149 votes, as against 291,263 cast for Van Buren in 1848. If there had been a marked sec- tional spirit popularly, the Free Soilers would have benefited, as they were the only political sectionalists of that time.
The outstanding event of Pierce's administration (1853-57) was the repeal of the Missouri Compromise in the early part of 1854. This repeal measure was intro- duced and championed by Senator Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois, and was supported by the administration Democrats and the conservative Whigs. It was main- tained that as the Compromise legislation of 1850 had
239
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
given the south an equal chance for slavery in the Terri- tories of New Mexico and Utah, a new national princi- ple governing the question of slavery in the Territories had consequently been established-the principle of "popular sovereignty," or decision by vote of the people concerned; and that the same principle should be applied to the still unorganized portion of the old Louisiana Purchase north of 36° 30'-an extensive country lying west of Missouri, Iowa, and Minnesota, and stretching to the crest of the Rocky Mountains. It had become of urgent importance to extinguish the Indian titles and erect Territories in the Louisiana Purchase, not only as a matter of satisfaction to Ameri- can settlers who wished the lands, but also for the security and advantage of the many emigrants crossing the plains to California and Oregon, who were entitled to the protection of organized government and the benefit of civilized settlement along their routes of travel.
An effort had been made at the Congressional session of 1852-53 (before the coming in of the Pierce admin- istration) to institute a new Territory west of Missouri under the anti-slavery guarantee of the Missouri Com- promise, but it had failed because of southern opposi- tion in the Senate. The establishment of such a Territory could not be delayed, and it was certain the south would agree to its organization if the ban against slavery should be lifted. Altogether, the arguments for the repeal of the Missouri Compromise seemed convincing to Douglas, and the great influence that he exercised, combined with the active favor of the south,
-
240
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
carried the repeal measure through. The bill provided for creating out of the Louisiana Purchase two new Territories, Kansas and Nebraska, and was therefore known as the Kansas-Nebraska bill.
Strong opposition to the policy thus entered upon was at once developed at the north, and the issue was taken into all the State and Congressional elections of 1854. The movement resulted in the inception and organization of the Republican party, although for some time the opponents of the act were slow to assume the name of Republicans, preferring to be called Anti- Nebraskans. There was as yet no concerted plan of the diverse elements represented to combine themselves into a compact new party. The political situation just at that time was vastly complicated by the appearance of the Know-Nothing, or so-styled "American" party, on a program of comprehensive antagonism to the foreign-born elements of the population and to the Catholic church. This organization had not as yet formally entered the political field; and as it operated on the basis of a strictly secret "order" it remained an uncertain quantity throughout the upheaval that imme- diately followed the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act. At the fall elections of 1854 the Know-Nothings polled a formidable vote in several important States and elected a large number of members of Congress. Meantime the Whig party, while here and there mak- ing a valorous fight for life, fell into a state of general collapse that presaged its early end. It did not have the votes to maintain an effective existence for itself after parting with its many members who decided to
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.