Political Recollections | Page 8

national House of Representatives. It was in the August of the same
year that the voting Abolitionists held a National Convention in Buffalo,
in which all the free States, except New Hampshire, were represented;
while in the following year the Methodist Episcopal Church was rent in
twain by the same unmanageable question, which had previously
divided other ecclesiastical communions.
In the meanwhile, the question of Texan annexation had been steadily
advancing to the political front, and stirring the blood of the people
both North and South. This "robbery of a realm," as Dr. Channing had
styled it, was the unalterable purpose and unquenchable desire of the
slave-holding interest, and its accomplishment was to be secured by
openly espousing the principle that the end justifies the means, and
setting all consequences at defiance. This is exactly what the
Government did. The diplomacy through which the plot was prosecuted
was marked by a cunning, audacity, and perfidy, which, in these

particulars, leave the administration of John Tyler unrivalled in its ugly
pre-eminence, and form one of the blackest pages in the history of the
Republic. The momentous question was now upon us; and on the
dawning of the year 1844, all parties saw that it was destined to be the
overshadowing issue in the ensuing presidential campaign.
CHAPTER II.
THE CAMPAIGN OF 1844--ANNEXATION AND SLAVERY. The
nomination of Clay--His position on the slavery question and
annexation--Van Buren's letter to Hammet, and its effect upon the
South--His repudiation, and the nomination of Polk--The surprise of the
country--Unbounded confidence of the Whigs--The course of the New
York Democrats--The "Kane Letter"--Trouble among the Whigs on the
annexation question--Fierceness of the contest, and singular ability of
the leaders--The effect of Clay's defeat upon the Whigs --Causes of the
defeat--The Abolitionists, and the abuse heaped upon them--Cassius M.
Clay--Mr. Hoar's mission to South Carolina-- Election of John P.
Hale--Annexation and war with Mexico--Polk's message, and the
Wilmot proviso--The Oregon question, and Alex. H. Stephens.
The times were serious. The fun and frolic of 1840 had borne no fruit,
and that part of our history could not be repeated. The campaign of
1844 promised to be a struggle for principle; and among the Whigs all
eyes were turned for a standard-bearer to Mr. Clay, who had been so
shabbily treated four years before. He was unanimously nominated on
the first of May, with Theodore Frelinghuysen as the candidate for Vice
President. The party issues were not very sharply defined, but this was
scarcely necessary with a candidate who was proverbially regarded as
himself "the embodiment of Whig principles." On the subject of
annexation, he clearly defined his position in his letter of the 17th of
April to the "National Intelligencer." He declared that annexation and
war with Mexico were identical, and placed himself squarely against it,
except upon conditions specified, which would make the project of
immediate annexation impossible. On the slavery question, he had not
yet seriously offended the anti-slavery element in his own party, and
was even trusted by some of the voting anti-slavery men. In a speech at

Raleigh, in April of this year, he declared it to be "the duty of each
State to sustain its own domestic institutions." He had publicly said that
the General Government had nothing to do with slavery, save in the
matters of taxation, representation, and the return of fugitive slaves. He
had condemned the censure of Mr. Giddings in 1842 as an outrage, and
indorsed the principles laid down in his tract, signed "Pacificus," on the
relations of the Federal Government to slavery, and the rights and
duties of the people of the free States. In his earlier years, he had been
an outspoken emancipationist, and had always frankly expressed his
opinion that slavery was a great evil. These considerations, and
especially his unequivocal utterances against the annexation scheme,
were regarded as hopeful auguries of a thoroughly united party, and its
triumph at the polls; while Mr. Webster, always on the presidential
anxious-seat, and carefully watching the signs of the political zodiac,
now cordially lent his efforts to the Whig cause.
With the Democracy, Mr. Van Buren was still a general favorite. His
friends felt that the wrong done him in 1840 should now be righted, and
a large majority of his party undoubtedly favored his renomination. But
his famous letter to Mr. Hammet, of Mississippi, dated March 27th, on
the annexation of Texas, placed a lion in his path. In this lengthy and
elaborate document he committed himself against the project of
immediate annexation, and the effect was at once seen in the decidedly
unfriendly tone of Democratic opinion in the South. He had been
faithful to the Slave oligarchy in many things, but his failure in one was
counted a breach of the whole law. By many acts