ate" had refused confirmation as minister to England, was the end to which all things else, so far as might be, were made subservient.' This was triumphantly achieved in 1836, but the triumph could not be accepted as complete with the capture of only one presidential term. After the great disaster to the Democrats in 1840, though Jackson had not been able to save even Tennessee from the wreck, he still remained faithful to his protégé. During nearly the whole of the next four years it looked as if Van Buren, backed by the potent influence of the "Old Hero," would be again the candidate of his party; but in 1844 his political bark foundered on the rock Texas. Strangely enough, this catastrophe was itself partly the work of Jackson, who had been led to declare himself concerning annexation, and whose declaration had been used to the great disadvantage of his friend and favorite. The letter in which Jackson gave his views on the subject was dated February 12, 1843, and was first published in the Richmond Enquirer for March 22, 1844. It was dated in the Enquirer February 12, 1844, but this change was probably only a printer's mistake; at any rate, it was copied into Niles' Register for March 30, 1844, with the date corrected. As to the way in which the letter came to be written, there is really little need of the elaborate and im 'See MacDonald, Jacksonian Democracy (Am. Nation, XV.), Niles' Register, LXVI., 70. 192. probable explanation of Benton,1 that Congressman Aaron V. Brown of Tennessee clipped from the Richmond Enquirer a letter on the subject by T. W. Gilmer, a friend of Calhoun's, and sent it to Jackson, asking what he thought of it—the whole affair having been prearranged for Calhoun's benefit. What Brown did was very natural without assuming any such plan; and it was not less so that Jackson should have given his opinion and that his answer should ultimately find its way into print. It must have been written with that possibility in view, and Jackson seems not to have objected to its publication. Interested as he was in Van Buren, he also had a deep interest in Sam Houston and the large number of other Tennesseeans who had made their homes in Texas; nor is it to be doubted that the fears he expressed in his letter of the British influence in Texas and a possible attack by Great Britain on the United States, accompanied by a slave insurrection in the Southwest, were genuine. The publication of Jackson's letter did not prevent Van Buren from declaring against immediate annexation; and his manifesto to that effect, in answer to a letter written nearly a month before, appeared along with Clay's a few weeks later. Van Buren's conduct in taking this stand has been described as "perhaps the most courageous act of a public life which was not characterized by great 'Benton, Thirty Years' View, II., 587. " 1 courage. The declaration might be regarded as more courageous if it had been made in time to give his enemies a chance to prevent the movement for his renomination; but when the letter appeared the prize seemed to be already in his hands, a large majority of the delegates to the Democratic convention being either instructed for him or understood to be in his favor. The earliest convention held to nominate a candidate for president to succeed Tyler was one whose importance did not become evident till after the election. This was the convention of the Liberty party at Buffalo, in August, 1843, composed entirely of abolitionists. It represented relatively few voters, but enough to hold the balance between the Whigs and Democrats in New York, and— as the event showed-in the United States as well. It nominated James G. Birney of Michigan for president, and Thomas Morris of Ohio for vicepresident, and adopted a platform consisting of a long series of resolutions, but presenting only the one issue of slavery, which was condemned in the strongest and most uncompromising terms. The platform contained no direct reference to Texas, because annexation did not then appear to be in prospect; but the case was perhaps sufficiently covered by a denunciation of the policy of allowing the extension of slave territory.2 1 Stanwood, Hist. of the Presidency, 210. The next convention was that of the Whigs, which met in Baltimore, May 1, 1844. As the time for it drew near the prospects for that party seemed really better than for the Democrats. Van Buren's letter on Texas had destroyed his availability, and there was none else on whom the "Locos," as his followers were called,1 could unite with enthusiasm. Among the Whigs, on the other hand, the leadership of Clay was undisputed. His nomination was certain, and it was evident that he was the strongest candidate his party could select. But he could not see his way clearly amid the confusion, and the party had no safer intuitions than its leader. When the convention met, Clay was nominated for president unanimously and without a contest; and only four ballots were required to nominate Theodore Frelinghuysen of New Jersey for vicepresident. The platform was worthy of the leading candidate. It consisted of four resolutions, three of which were devoted to commendation of the nominees. The other, which stood second in the series, was a very brief and general statement of Whig principles, which carefully avoided the most dangerous issues. Nothing was said of a national bank, which the Whigs had supported so determinedly at the outset of the Tyler administration, and, above all, nothing of Texas.2 Lalor, Cyclopædia, II., 781. 'A report of the proceedings is in Niles' Register, LXVI., 146-148. In the mean time the prospects of Van Buren were becoming worse every day. An editorial in Niles' Register for May 11, relative to the approaching convention, says: "Notwithstanding the apparent certainty, three weeks ago, that Mr. Van Buren would be the nominee of that convention, there is now great uncertainty of the result"; and the situation is illustrated by a number of items quoted from leading newspapers showing the progress and strength of the reaction throughout the country.1 Long delayed as his letter against annexation was, it came in time to work his political destruction. Jackson was asked to save him, and responded with another letter, which first appeared in the Nashville Union for May 16, and in which he refused to give up either Van Buren or immediate annexation. He had, however, much to say of the issue, and only a brief commendation of Van Buren's character, excusing him with almost brutal frankness on the ground that he hadn't kept up with the subject. The mischievous potency of such a letter needs no explanation." The Democratic convention met in Baltimore May 27. A majority of the delegates were instructed for Van Buren, but many even among that majority did not wish to see him nominated. The first step towards compassing his defeat was taken in the adoption of the two-thirds rule. The initial ballot showed 146 votes for Van Buren, with 1 Niles' Register, LXVI., 161–163. 2 Ibid., 193. VOL. XVII.-9 |