USA > New York > History of the state of New York, political and governmental, Vol. VI > Part 5
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 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44
The Missouri Compromise, 1820
This celebrated measure, approved March 6, 1820, was an agreement between the north and south on the subject of slavery extension.
The Territory of Missouri having applied (March, 1818) for admission as a State of the Union, an excessively bitter controversy arose in Congress in rela- tion to the proposed permission of slavery within its borders.
The claim made for authorizing slavery in Missouri was much more plausible than any subsequently put forward for its intrusion into other portions of the still
1Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Monroe, and John Quincy Adams had made in all 74 removals, all but a few for cause, during the forty years of their aggregate Presidential terms. In one year, the first of his ad- ministration, Jackson removed 491 postmasters and 239 other officers, and since the new men appointed clerks and other subordinates, the sum total in that year was reckoned at more than two thousand .- Carl Schurz, Life of Henry Clay, vol. i, p. 334.
·
62
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
unorganized national domain lying outside the geo- graphical section in which the "peculiar institution" flourished. Slavery had already been established in Missouri Territory by the settlers, and the desire of a majority of them for its continuance without restriction was evidenced by their election of a strong pro-slavery Delegate to Congress and by the lack, throughout the long struggle on the question in that body, of any dispo- sition on the part of Missouri to accept a compromise. Historically the prospective new State had exclusively southern antecedents; it had been an integral part of Louisiana. In the respect also of situation the south claimed a superior right to Missouri, as it was con- terminus with slave territory and not adjacent to settled free territory, being separated from the latter by the Mississippi River.
From the point of view held at that period by most people except the uncompromising opponents of slavery on principle, it was considered wise to adhere politi- cally to the spirit of slavery-neutrality shown by the framers of the Constitution and since tacitly observed, by admitting new slave States as well as new free States according to situation or local preference. It was gen- erally conceded that if there were to be "balances" in the future, as there had been in the past, the south could not be expected to refrain from having its share agree- ably to its "reasonable" claims. From these accommo- dating views the country was destined to have a com- plete awakening; but they exerted a deciding influence until the extreme southern pretensions brought about a
63
NATIONAL PARTY PLATFORMS
concentration of political anti-slavery sentiment at the north.
Up to the time of Missouri's application for admis- sion in 1818, no exciting question had arisen concerning slavery extension. Events had not only taken a per- fectly undisturbed course, but in their results had operated with singular evenness toward maintaining and perpetuating the original equilibrium between the northern and southern States. On the one hand, the "Northwest Territory"-comprising what have since become the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin-had been established by the Ordinance of 1787, and afterward firmly organized, in conformity to the principle of slavery exclusion; and identically with the occurrence of the Missouri question Maine was just coming into the Union as a free State. Off- setting these accessions to the political strength of the north were the additions to the southern system of Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, with Arkansas Territory carved out of Missouri-all on the basis of slavery permission. It should be particularly remembered that at the time in question, and for many years afterward, the remainder of the national domain not as yet organized into States or in process of such formation was limited to the residuum of the old Louisiana Purchase, and its projec- tion to the Pacific through the "Oregon Country" sub- ject to a temporary diplomatic arrangement of equal rights of occupation with Great Britain in the latter; and that as this entire region extended northwardly, it was regarded as not to be associated with the sphere of
64
[1820
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
the slavery institution. The glittering prospect of a southwestern empire for slavery in the vast area still owned by Spain, reaching from Texas on the Gulf to California on the Pacific, had not come into view.
It was decided by the southerners that the time had arrived to take a more aggressive political stand for their institution. While the existing balance of the States was not unfavorable to them in the numerical respect, there was a large and constantly increasing preponderance of population, enterprise, and wealth in the north, which had its reflection in a steadily grow- ing superiority of northern representation in the national House of Representatives. Nothing could appear more certain than that the balance would be still further disarranged in the future, with ultimate jeopardy to slavery even at the south, if concessions were not wrung from the north.
The south insisted that in consideration of all these circumstances it had every justification of claim to Missouri, and was unyielding in its demand for the slavery provision of the bill. That the advocates of freedom were equally determined, and in the end were able to force an advantageous compromise, was a fact of great significance for the future. Against threats of disunion which were known to be fully meant, a national opposition to the farther spread of slavery was energized which, while taking no party name, repre- sented an unmistakable accord and resolution on the subject. The objection to slavery, formerly only senti- mental, was thus made political. After the final Missouri settlement the political feeling became
65
NATIONAL PARTY PLATFORMS
1820-1]
quiescent, but with the certainty that it would not so continue if further provocative steps should be taken by the south.
The Compromise of 1820, adopted after two years of Congressional consideration, gave sanction to slavery in Missouri, but interdicted it elsewhere west or north of the parallel 36° 30', this line being Missouri's southern boundary.
But the contest was not yet ended. Missouri, having received authorization to come into the Union, pro- ceeded to adopt a State Constitution which in its slavery provisions went far beyond what the northern people had expected, or were willing to tolerate-one of its clauses being a command to the Legislature to pass laws "to prevent free negroes and mulattoes from coming to, and settling in, this State, under any pretext whatever." The whole question of admission was thereupon reopened. Northern sentiment demanded that Missouri expunge the objectionable clause before being received as a State; but Congress, intimidated by renewed southern threats of secession, refused to make any such condition. Again a compromise was devised, of which Clay (then a member of the House) was the author. Missouri was not required to recede in terms from her action, but was to pledge herself to pass no law "by which any of the citizens of either of the States should be excluded from the enjoyment of the privi- leges and immunities to which they are entitled under the Constitution of the United States." The practical effect of this was to prevent infraction of the rights of free colored persons coming to Missouri from other
66
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1820-1
States in which they had previously acquired citizen- ship with the consequent guarantee to them of similar equality and privileges in all the States as expressly conferred by the Federal Constitution (Article IV, Section 2). As Missouri was not subjected to the indig- nity of being constrained to surrender her sovereign privilege of writing her own Constitution, and as the rights of the matter were based only on the Federal Constitution, to which the protagonists of slavery always urged a strict obedience, a majority of the southern members accepted the new compromise. The north was more reluctant, but finally gave the required support. By the close vote of 86 to 82 the measure was passed in the House (February, 1821), and it was promptly agreed to by the Senate. Missouri complied with the fundamental condition, and the fierce struggle was over.
An understanding of the principal circumstances and details involved in the Missouri Compromise, or rather compromises, is indispensable to a correct appreciation of the many and extraordinary subsequent phases of the political slavery controversy, especially as related to party attitudes and acts. At the present distance of time, with the absolute unanimity of opinion on the subject of slavery that has come to be established, it seems to many strange that an affirmative policy on the part of the north concerning the whole question was so long delayed, and even when ventured upon was the policy of only the major part of the north and so remained until the crisis of war enforced a measurably complete acceptance of it. But the long delay and divi-
67
NATIONAL PARTY PLATFORMS
sion of the north resulted logically from very powerful and persuasive facts and conditions. There was the original compact of the States, which recognized and tolerated slavery, not, it is true, expressly (the word slavery does not appear in the Constitution), but most indisputably by inference and arrangement; there was the horror of disruption of the Union; there were the intimate and indispensable interrelations with the south; there were the numerous other questions and matters in no wise related to slavery, and the exciting and engrossing events incidental to the further expan- sion of the country, such as the acquisition of Texas, the settlement of the northwestern boundary, the war with Mexico, and the great migratory movement to the west; and finally there was the belief that the slavery issue had been settled by the Compromise of 1820, which was based upon a principle and restriction satis- factory to the prevailing sentiment of the north. This Compromise operated for a quarter of a century en- tirely to compose the political trouble about slavery, and even for quite a time had an incidence toward dis- couraging the moral and philosophical discussion of the topic.1 The anti-slavery feeling continued, however,
1When Jackson became President, in 1829, anti-slavery seemed, after fifty years of effort, to have spent its force. The voice of the churches was no longer heard in protest; the Abolitionist societies were dying out; there was hardly an Abolitionist militant in the field; the Colonization Society absorbed most of the public interest in the subject, and it was doing nothing to help either the free negro or the slave; in Congress there was only one anti- slavery man, and his efforts were without avail. It was a gloomy time for the little band of people who believed that slavery was poisonous to the south, hurtful to the north, and dangerous to the Union .- Albert Bushnell Hart, The American Nation, vol. xvi, p. 165.
68
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
in the States, and after some years began to show a steady increase as the result of agitation and also to exert pressure on Congress through the agency of peti- tions and by the sympathetic action of individual Rep- resentatives and Senators. But neither of the great parties of the period at any time gave it countenance.
PART II
PARTIES FROM 1832 TO 1856
R ESUMING now our account of the positions of national parties, the remainder of this record will be largely devoted to their successive plat- form declarations, which, as has been seen, began with the Presidential campaign of 1832.
1832 Anti-Masonic Party
The first national nominating convention of delegates was held by the Anti-Masonic party in Baltimore on September 26, 1831. This organization, dating from the year 1826, was founded on the program of opposi- tion to secret societies bound together by oaths. After enjoying some vogue for several years it went out of existence. In the 1832 campaign it was at its height.
The convention was presided over by John C. Spen- cer, of New York. Thirteen States were represented, with 112 delegates present.
William Wirt, of Maryland, was nominated for President, and Amos Ellmaker, of Pennsylvania, for Vice-President.
No platform of principles was adopted, but a com- mittee was appointed to issue an address to the people,
69
70
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1831
which duly appeared. It recited the ideas of the party at considerable length, declaring that the secret socie- ties constituted an institution which had become a poli- tical engine, and that political agencies were required to avert the baneful effects.
National Republican Party
The convention assembled in Baltimore on the 12th of December, 1831-Abner Lacock, of Pennsylvania, being temporary chairman, and James Barbour, of Virginia, permanent chairman. There were 157 dele- gates, from seventeen States.
Nominations, both unanimous :- for President, Henry Clay, of Kentucky; for Vice-President, John Sergeant, of Pennsylvania.
An address was adopted, but no (platform. The address arraigned the administration of President Jack- son with great acerbity, asserting, among other things, that
"The political history of the Union for the last three years exhibits a series of measures plainly dictated in all their principal features by blind cupidity or vindictive party spirit, marked throughout by a disre- gard of good policy, justice, and every high and generous sentiment, and terminating in a dissolution of the cabinet under circumstances more discreditable than any of the kind to be met with in the annals of the civilized world."
A special feature of this address was a strong plea for rechartering the United States Bank, which was incorporated in it by the insistence of Clay, who re- garded the Bank issue as the strongest one that could be urged in the campaign. Other features were con- demnations of the administration for its spoils policy,
71
NATIONAL PARTY PLATFORMS
1832]
its course on the questions of the tariff and internal im- provements, and its failure to protect the Cherokee Indians against the outrageous and inhuman treatment of them by the State of Georgia.
One of the most important acts of the convention was the adoption of a resolve recommending that a national gathering of the young men of the party be held in Washington on May 11, 1832. The body met as ap- pointed, William Cost Johnson, of Maryland, presid- ing. After ratifying the nominations of Clay and Ser- geant it adopted the following platform :
"1. Resolved, That, in the opinion of this convention, although the fundamental principles adopted by our fathers, as a basis upon which to raise a superstructure of American independence, can never be annihilated, yet the time has come when nothing short of the united energies of all the friends of the American republic can be relied on to sustain and perpetuate that hallowed work.
"2. Resolved, That an adequate protection to American industry is indispensable to the prosperity of the country; and that an abandon- ment of the policy at this period would be attended with consequences ruinous to the best interests of the nation.
"3. Resolved, That a uniform system of internal improvements, sustained and supported by the general government, is calculated to secure, in the highest degree, the harmony, the strength, and the per- manency of the republic.
"4. Resolved, That the Supreme Court of the United States is the only tribunal recognized by the Constitution for deciding in the last resort all questions arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that upon the preservation of the authority and jurisdiction of that court inviolate depends the existence of the nation.
"5. Resolved, That the Senate of the United States is preëmi- nently a conservative branch of the Federal government; that upon a fearless and independent exercise of its constitutional functions
72
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1832
depends the existence of the nicely balanced powers of that govern- ment; and that all attempts to overawe its deliberations by the public press or by the national Executive deserve the indignant reprobation of every American citizen.
"6. Resolved, That the political course of the present Executive has given us no pledge that he will defend and support these great principles of American policy and the Constitution; but, on the con- trary, has convinced us that he will abandon them whenever the pur- poses of party require it.
"7. Resolved, That the indiscriminate removal of public officers, for the mere difference of political opinion, is a gross abuse of power; and that the doctrine lately 'boldly preached' in the Senate of the United States, that 'to the victor belong the spoils of the enemy,' is detrimental to the interests, corrupting to the morals, and dangerous to the liberties of this country.
"8. Resolved, That we hold the disposition shown by the present national administration to accept the advice of the king of Holland touching the northeastern boundary of the United States, and thus to transfer a portion of the territory and citizens of a State of this Union to a foreign power, to manifest a total destitution of patriotic American feeling, inasmuch as we consider the life, liberty, property, and citizenship of every inhabitant of every State as entitled to the national protection.
"9. Resolved, That the arrangement between the United States and Great Britain relative to the colonial trade, made in pursuance of the instructions of the late Secretary of State, was procured in a manner derogatory to the national character, and is injurious to this country in its practical results.
"10. Resolved, That it is the duty of every citizen of this republic who regards the honor, the prosperity, and the preservation of our Union, to oppose by every honorable measure the reelection of Andrew Jackson, and to promote the election of Henry Clay, of Kentucky, and John Sergeant, of Pennsylvania, as President and Vice-President of the United States."
-
JAMES MADISON
James Madison, 4th president; born at Port Conway, Va., March 16, 1751; lawyer; member of first general assembly of Virginia, 1776; congress, 1789-1797; secretary of state under Jefferson, 1801-1809; president of the United States from March 4, 1809 to March 3, 1817; died at Montpelier, Orange county, Va., June 28, 1836.
ـي
73
NATIONAL PARTY PLATFORMS !
1832]
Democratic Party
The last of the national conventions to assemble preparatory to the campaign was that of the dominant party, the Democrats. It met in Baltimore, May 21, 1832, delegates from twenty-three States attending. Robert Lucas, of Ohio, presided.
In effecting its organization according to the custom of deliberative bodies the convention appointed a com- mittee on rules, which took into consideration, among other matters, the question of the number of votes to be required for nominations. As it was known that President Jackson would be renominated unanimously, no provision was considered proper in relation to the Presidency; but concerning the Vice-Presidency the committee reported the following resolution, which was adopted by the convention :
"Resolved, That each State be entitled, in the nomination to be made for the Vice-Presidency, to a number of votes equal to the num- ber to which it will be entitled in the Electoral Colleges under the new apportionment in voting for President and Vice-President; and that two-thirds of the whole number of votes in the convention shall be necessary to constitute a choice."
This was the origin of the two-thirds rule that has ever since governed Democratic national conventions.
For President, Andrew Jackson, of Tennessee, was nominated unanimously; for Vice-President, Martin Van Buren, of New York, by 208 votes against 49 for Philip P. Barbour, of Virginia, and 26 for Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky. The choice of the Vice- Presidential candidate was dictated by Jackson, who at all times placed the strongest reliance upon Van
74
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1832
Buren as his consistent and able supporter both politi- cally and personally.
No platform was adopted.
The Election
For President, Electoral vote :
Andrew Jackson, Democrat :- Alabama, 7; Georgia, 11; Illinois, 5; Indiana, 9; Louisiana, 5; Maine, 10; Maryland, 3; Mississippi, 4; Missouri, 4; New Hampshire, 7; New Jersey, 8; New York, 42; North Carolina, 15; Ohio, 21; Pennsylvania, 30; Tennessee, 15; Virginia, 23. Total, 219. Elected.
Henry Clay, National Republican :- Connecticut, 8; Delaware, 3; Kentucky, 15; Maryland, 5; Massachusetts, 14; Rhode Island, 4. Total, 49.
John Floyd, of Virginia :- South Carolina, 11. His candidacy was purely local to South Carolina, expressive of the nullification and secessionist attitude taken by that State on account of the pro- tective tariff, especially the so-called "tariff of abominations" of 1828. Jackson was not an extremist on the tariff either for or against pro- tection, but was uncompromisingly for the preservation of the Union against any State separatist scheme. The Floyd vote was South Carolina's protest against his reëlection.
William Wirt, Anti-Mason :- Vermont, 7.
For Vice-President, Electoral vote :
Martin Van Buren, Democrat :- Same as Jackson, less 30 in Pennsylvania. Total, 189. Elected.
John Sergeant, National Republican :- Same as Clay, 49.
William Wilkins, of Pennsylvania, Democrat :- Pennsylvania, 30. Henry Lee, of Massachusetts :- Same as Floyd, 11.
Amos Ellmaker, Anti-Mason :- Same as Wirt, 7.
Popular vote :
Jackson, 687,502; Clay and Wirt, 530,189. Wirt, says Greeley and Cleveland's "Political Text-Book for 1860," "received a consid- erable vote in New England, New York, and Pennsylvania" which is added in the total of 530,189 for Clay.
1836 Democratic Party
The national convention assembled in Baltimore, May 20, 1835-nearly a year and a half in advance of the election. Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, was chosen chairman. The two-thirds rule for nomina- tions was adopted. This action for the first time estab- lished the rule for both Presidential and Vice-Presi- dential nominations. The subject came up before the full convention, which debated and decided it-the vote being 231 for the rule and 210 against. The prin- cipal argument in its favor appears to have been that a nomination by two-thirds would "have a more impos- ing effect."
The early national conventions exhibited several aspects of considerable curiosity. The nominating convention system being an innovation, its practical details required some time to be perfected. Edward M. Shepard, writing of this Democratic convention of 1835 in his Life of Martin Van Buren ("American Statesmen"), says :
"There were over five hundred delegates from twenty-three States. South Carolina, Alabama, and Illinois were not represented. Party organization was still very imperfect. The modern system of precise and proportional representation was not yet known. The States which approved the convention sent delegates in such number as suited
75
76
[1835-6
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
their convenience. Maryland, the convention being held in its chief city, sent 183 delegates; Virginia, close at hand, sent 102; New York, although the home of the proposed candidate, sent but 42, the precise number of its Electoral votes. Tennessee sent but one; Mississippi and Missouri, only two each. In making the nominations, the dele- gates from each State, however numerous or few, cast a number of votes equal to its representation in the Electoral College. The 183 delegates from Maryland cast therefore but ten votes ; while the single delegate from Tennessee, much courted man he must have been, cast fifteen."
Martin Van Buren, of New York, received the nomi- nation for President unanimously, this choice being in conformity to the well-known wish of Jackson. On the first ballot for Vice-President, Richard M. John- son, of Kentucky, was nominated by a very close margin over the required two-thirds, having 178 votes against 87 for William C. Rives, of Virginia.
Again the Democratic party preferred to go before the people without presenting a national platform.
Whig Party
The name Whig had by this time been generally substituted for National Republican. Owing to the disastrous defeat of Clay in 1832, it was not deemed expedient again to nominate him. The party was suf- fering much discouragement from the lack of a confi- dent organization and leadership adapted to put it in an aggressive position against the supreme and disci- plined Democracy. While it retained its determina- tion and energy as an opposition, its distractions were too serious to enable it to enter the campaign to advan- tage. No national convention was held, and the mat-
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.