Part 10

_Resolved_, That it was understood in the times of the Declaration and the Constitution that the existence of slavery in some of the States was in derogation of the principles of American liberty, and a deep stain upon the character of the country and the implied faith of the States; and the nation was pledged that slavery should never be extended beyond its then existing limits, but should be gradually, and yet at no distant day, wholly abolished by State authority.

_Resolved_, That the faith of the States and the nation thus pledged was most nobly redeemed by the voluntary abolition of slavery in several of the States, and by the adoption of the ordinance of 1787 for the government of the territory northwest of the river Ohio, then the only territory in the United States, and consequently the only territory subject in this respect to the control of Congress, by which ordinance slavery was forever excluded from the vast regions which now compose the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and the Territory of Wisconsin, and an incapacity to bear up any other than free men was impressed on the soil itself.

_Resolved_, That the faith of the States and nation thus pledged has been shamefully violated by the omission on the part of many of the States to take any measures whatever for the abolition of slavery within their respective limits; by the continuance of slavery in the District of Columbia and in the Territories of Louisiana and Florida; by the legislation of Congress; by the protection afforded by national legislation and negotiation to slaveholding in American vessels, on the high seas, employed in the coastwise slave traffic; and by the extension of slavery far beyond its original limits, by acts of Congress admitting new Slave States into the Union.

_Resolved_, That the fundamental truth of the Declaration of Independence, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, was made the fundamental law of our National Government by that amendment of the Constitution which declares that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

_Resolved_, That we recognize as sound the doctrine maintained by slaveholding jurists, that slavery is against natural rights and strictly local, and that its existence and continuance rest on no other support than State legislation, and not on any authority of Congress.

_Resolved_, That the General Government has, under the Constitution, no power to establish or continue slavery anywhere, and therefore that all treaties and acts of Congress establishing, continuing, or favoring slavery in the District of Columbia, in the Territory of Florida, or on the high seas, are unconstitutional, and all attempts to hold men as property within the limits of exclusive national jurisdiction ought to be prohibited by law.

_Resolved_, That the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, which confer extraordinary political powers on the owners of slaves, and thereby constituting the two hundred and fifty thousand slaveholders in the Slave States a privileged aristocracy, and the provision for the reclamation of fugitive slaves from service, are anti-republican in their character, dangerous to the liberties of the people, and ought to be abrogated.

_Resolved_, That the practical operation of the second of these provisions is seen in the enactment of the Act of Congress respecting persons escaping from their masters, which act, if the construction given to it by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Prigg _v._ Pennsylvania be correct, nullifies the _habeas corpus_ acts of all the States, takes away the whole legal security of personal freedom, and ought therefore to be immediately repealed.

_Resolved_, That the peculiar patronage and support hitherto extended to slavery and slaveholding by the General Government ought to be immediately withdrawn, and the example and influence of national authority ought to be arrayed on the side of liberty and free labor.

_Resolved_, That the practice of the General Government, which prevails in the Slave States, of employing slaves upon the public works, instead of free laborers, and paying aristocratic masters, with a view to secure or reward political services, is utterly indefensible and ought to be abandoned.

_Resolved_, That the freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of petition and the right of trial by jury, are sacred and inviolable; and that all rules, regulations, and laws in derogation of either are oppressive, unconstitutional, and not to be endured by free people.

_Resolved_, That we regard voting, in an eminent degree, as a moral and religious duty, which, when exercised, should be by voting for those who will do all in their power for immediate emancipation.

_Resolved_, That this convention recommend to the friends of liberty in all those Free States where any inequality of rights and privileges exists on account of color, to employ their utmost energies to remove all such remnants and effects of the slave system.

_Whereas_, The Constitution of these United States is a series of agreements, covenants, or contracts between the people of the United States, each with all and all with each; and

_Whereas_, It is a principle of universal morality, that the moral laws of the Creator are paramount to all human laws; or, in the language of an Apostle, that “we ought to obey God rather than men;” and

_Whereas_, The principle of common law, that any contract, covenant, or agreement to do an act derogatory to natural rights is vitiated and annulled by its inherent immorality, has been recognized by one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, who in a recent case expressly holds that any “contract that rests upon such a basis is void;” and

_Whereas_, The third clause of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States, when construed as providing for the surrender of a fugitive slave, does “rest upon such a basis,” in that it is a contract to rob a man of a natural right, namely, his natural right to his own liberty, and is, therefore, absolutely void; therefore,

_Resolved_, That we hereby give it to be distinctly understood by this nation and the world, that, as Abolitionists, considering that the strength of our cause lies in its righteousness, and our hope for it in our conformity to the laws of God and our respect for the rights of man, we owe it to the Sovereign Ruler of the universe, as a proof of our allegiance to Him, in all our civil relations and offices, whether as private citizens or as public functionaries sworn to support the Constitution of the United States, to regard and to treat the third clause of the fourth article of that instrument, whenever applied to the case of a fugitive slave, as utterly null and void, and consequently as forming no part of the Constitution of the United States, whenever we are called upon or sworn to support it.

_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:

═══════════════════╤══════════════════════════════════╦═══════════════ │ POPULAR VOTE. ║ ELECTORS. ├───────────┬───────────┬──────────╫───────┬─────── STATES. │ James K. │ Henry │ James G. ║ Polk. │ Clay. │ Polk. │ Clay. │ Birney. ║ │ ───────────────────┼───────────┼───────────┼──────────╫───────┼─────── Maine │ 45,719 │ 34,378 │ 4,836 ║ 9 │ ―― New Hampshire │ 27,160 │ 17,866 │ 4,161 ║ 6 │ ―― Vermont │ 18,041 │ 26,770 │ 3,954 ║ ―― │ 6 Massachusetts │ 52,846 │ 67,418 │ 10,860 ║ ―― │ 12 Rhode Island │ 4,867 │ 7,322 │ 107 ║ ―― │ 4 Connecticut │ 29,841 │ 32,832 │ 1,943 ║ ―― │ 6 New York │ 237,588 │ 232,482 │ 15,812 ║ 36 │ ―― New Jersey │ 37,495 │ 38,318 │ 131 ║ ―― │ 7 Pennsylvania │ 167,535 │ 161,203 │ 3,138 ║ 26 │ ―― Delaware │ 5,996 │ 6,278 │ ―――― ║ ―― │ 3 Maryland │ 32,676 │ 35,984 │ ―――― ║ ―― │ 8 Virginia │ 49,570 │ 43,677 │ ―――― ║ 17 │ ―― North Carolina │ 39,287 │ 43,232 │ ―――― ║ ―― │ 11 South Carolina[12] │ ―――― │ ―――― │ ―――― ║ 9 │ ―― Georgia │ 44,177 │ 42,100 │ ―――― ║ 10 │ ―― Alabama │ 37,740 │ 26,084 │ ―――― ║ 9 │ ―― Mississippi │ 25,126 │ 19,206 │ ―――― ║ 6 │ ―― Louisiana │ 13,782 │ 13,083 │ ―――― ║ 6 │ ―― Kentucky │ 51,988 │ 61,255 │ ―――― ║ ―― │ 12 Tennessee │ 59,917 │ 60,030 │ ―――― ║ ―― │ 13 Missouri │ 41,369 │ 31,251 │ ―――― ║ 7 │ ―― Arkansas │ 9,546 │ 5,504 │ ―――― ║ 3 │ ―― Ohio │ 149,117 │ 155,057 │ 8,050 ║ ―― │ 23 Michigan │ 27,759 │ 24,337 │ 3,632 ║ 5 │ ―― Indiana │ 70,181 │ 67,867 │ 2,106 ║ 12 │ ―― Illinois │ 57,920 │ 45,528 │ 3,570 ║ 9 │ ―― ├───────────┼───────────┼──────────╫───────┼─────── Totals │ 1,337,243 │ 1,299,062 │ 62,300 ║ 170 │ 105 ═══════════════════╧═══════════╧═══════════╧══════════╩═══════╧═══════

[12] Chosen by Legislature.

The Whigs, in keen despair over the defeat of their ablest and most beloved champion, charged fraud as the controlling factor in giving the Democrats their victory, but the battle had been fought and lost, and there was nothing left for them but submission. The electoral count was uneventful, and Polk and Dallas were formally declared elected President and Vice-President without objection.

The most desperate contests outside of New York and Pennsylvania were made in Tennessee and Delaware. Tennessee was the home of Polk, and the “Old Hero of New Orleans” threw himself into the contest for Polk with tireless energy. He inspired his veteran followers not only because he wanted Polk elected, but because he much more wanted Clay defeated. Clay had defeated him for President in the House in 1825, and Jackson never forgot a friend and rarely forgave an enemy. It was many days after the election before the vote of Tennessee could be ascertained, and it was claimed by both parties until the official vote was declared. It was finally announced that Clay had carried the State by 113, and the success of Clay in that State was the only silver lining the Whigs had to the dark cloud of their defeat.

Another memorable battle, though not in any sense an important contest as affecting the result, was fought in Delaware. The States did not then vote for President on the same day as now. All of them voted for Presidential electors in the month of November, although at that time nearly all the States elected their State officers and Congressmen earlier in the year. Delaware, with only 3 electoral votes, held both her State and her Presidential elections on the second Tuesday of November, and when her election day came around it was known to all that Clay was absolutely defeated for President.

New York and Pennsylvania had voted for Polk a week before, and on the second Tuesday of November only Massachusetts and Delaware were left among the States that had not yet chosen electors. Massachusetts was Whig and hardly contested, but Delaware made a most heroic battle for Clay, even when it was known that a victory in the little Diamond State could not aid the election of their favorite. The Democrats, inspired by their positively assured success in the national contest, exhausted their resources and efforts to win, but in the largest vote ever cast in the State, Clay won by 287 majority, receiving a larger vote than was cast for the Whig candidates for Governor or for Congress, both of whom were successful, the first by 45 majority and the last by 173.

The Kentucky electors met at their Capitol on the day appointed for the electoral colleges to cast their votes for President, and in sorrowing devotion to their chief cast the vote of the State for Clay for President. After their official duties had been performed a committee was appointed to prepare an address to be delivered to Mr. Clay at Ashland. All the members of the college, with many other citizens, accompanied the committee, and Clay met them at his hospitable door to hear the address delivered by Mr. Underwood, the chairman. Clay’s reply was one of the most beautiful of his very many exquisite illustrations of oratory. He said he would not “affect indifference to the personal concern which I had in the political contest just terminated, but unless I am greatly self-deceived, the principal attraction to me of the office of President of the United States arose out of the cherished hope that I might be an humble instrument, in the hands of Providence, to accomplish public good,” and in conclusion he said: “I heartily thank you, sir, for your friendly wishes for my happiness in the retirement which henceforth best becomes me.” Thus closed the memorable Polk-Clay contest of 1844.

THE TAYLOR-CASS-VAN BUREN CONTEST

1848

President Polk was not blessed with a tranquil administration. The annexation of Texas had been approved by Tyler several days before Polk was inaugurated as President, and that at once made strained relations between this country and Mexico. It was an open secret then, and is now a part of the undisputed history of the country, that the election of Polk and the annexation of Texas were regarded by the friends of slavery extension as most important achievements, and that period dated the aggressive action of the South, first to extend and next to nationalize slavery. The annexation of Texas brought in a Slave State and two United States Senators, with the treaty right to add eight new Senators by the subdivision of the State.

This met Calhoun’s complaint that the South could not maintain its equilibrium in the Senate because of the growing West. The purposes of the Southern extensionists, however, went far beyond the annexation of Texas. They meant to have part of Mexico, peaceably if possible, by war if necessary; and the war was deliberately planned and precipitated upon Mexico by the action of the administration. The territory between the Nueces and the Rio Grande rivers was claimed by both Texas and Mexico, but Mexico had exercised uniform jurisdiction. Texas had never served a writ or collected a dollar of revenue on the Rio Grande, and the United States army of occupation, commanded by General Taylor, had not gone south of the Nueces. There was much violent discussion in Mexico over the annexation of Texas, whose independence Mexico disputed, and threats of war were freely made.

The President, without the authority or knowledge of Congress, ordered General Taylor to march to the Rio Grande and maintain it as the southern line of Texas. This precipitated the battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma, in which Taylor defeated the Mexicans. The Democratic Congress then prefaced a bill providing for the national defence by declaring that “we are at war by the act of Mexico.” The purpose of the Mexican war was very freely and severely criticised by a large portion of the people and by many of the ablest men of the nation. The Whigs in Congress were willing to vote for all needed appropriations for the support of the army, but a few members of the House, with the late John Strohm, of Pennsylvania, as the leader, after unsuccessfully struggling to strike out the declaration that “we were at war by the act of Mexico,” refused to vote for the army appropriation; and Corwin, of Ohio, made the ablest speech that ever was delivered in the Senate, with the single exception of Webster’s reply to Hayne, against the Mexican war and against appropriating money for its prosecution.