Page:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1889, volume 6).djvu/224

198 By remaining in the cabinet Mr. Webster showed himself too clear-sighted to contribute to a victory of which the whole profit would be reaped by his rival, Mr. Clay, and the president was glad to re- tain his hold upon so strong an element in the north as that which Mr. Webster represented. Some of the leading Whig members of congress now issued addresses to the people, in which they loudly condemned the conduct of the president and declared that " all political connection between them and John Tyler was at an end from that day forth." It was open war between the two depart- ments of government. Although many Whig mem- bers, like Preston, Talmadge, Johnson, and Mar- shall, really sympathized with Mr. Tyler, only a few, commonly known as "the corporal's guard," openly recognized him as their leader. But the Democratic members came to his support as an ally against the Whigs. The state elections of 1841 showed some symptoms of a reaction in favor of the president's views, for in general the Whigs lost ground in them. As the spectre of the crisis of 1837 faded away in the distance, the peo- ple began to recover from the sudden and over- mastering impulse that had swept the country in 1840, and the popular enthusiasm for the bank soon died away. Mr. Tyler had really won a vic- tory of the first magnitude, as was conclusively shown in 1844, when the presidential platform of the Whigs was careful to make no allusion what- ever to the bank. On this crucial question the doc- trines of paternal government had received a crush- ing and permanent defeat. In the next session of congress the strife with the president was renewed : but it was now tariff, not bank, that furnished the subject of discussion. Diminished importa- tions, due to the general prostration of business, had now diminished the revenue until it was insuffi- cient to meet the expenses of government. The Whigs accordingly carried through congress a bill continuing the protective duties of 1833, and provid- ing that the surplus revenue, which was thus sure soon to accumulate, should be distributed among the states. But the compromise act of 1833, in which Mr. Tyler had played an important part, had provided that the protective policy should come to an end in 1842. Both on this ground, and because of the provision for distributing the sur- plus, the president vetoed the new bill. Congress then devised and passed another bill, providing for a tariff for revenue, with incidental protection, but still contemplating a distribution of the surplus, if there should be any. The president vetoed this bill. Congress received the veto message with great indignation, and on the motion of ex- President John Q. Adams it was referred to a committee, which con- demned it as an unwarrantable assumption of power, and after a caustic summary of Mr. Tyler's acts since his accession to office, concluded with a reference to impeachment. This report called forth from the president a formal protest ; but the victory was already his. The Whigs were afraid to go before the country in the autumn elections with the tariff question unsettled, and the bill was accordingly passed by both houses, without the distributing clause, and was at once signed by the president. The distributing clause was then passed in a separate bill, but a ''pocket veto" disposed of it. Congress adjourned on 31 Aug., 1842, and in the elections the Whig majority of twenty-five in the house of representatives gave place to a Democratic majority of sixty-one.

On the remaining question of National Republi- can policy, that of internal improvements, the most noteworthy action of President Tyler was early in, when two river-and-harbor bills were passed by congress, the one relating to the eastern, the other to the western states. Mr. Tyler vetoed the former, but signed the latter, on the ground that the Mis- sissippi river, as a great common highway for the commerce of the whole country, was the legitimate concern of the national government in a sense that was not true of any other American river. An un- successful attempt was made to pass the other bill over the veto. The rest of Mr. Tyler's administra- tion was taken up with the Ashburton treaty with Great Britain (see Webster, Daniel), the Oregon question, and the annexation of Texas. Texas had won its independence from Mexico in 1836. and its governor, as well as the majority of its inhabi- tants, were citizens of the United States. From a broad national standpoint it was in every way de- sirable that Texas, as well as Oregon, should be- long to our Federal Union. In the eastern states there was certainly a failure to appreciate the value of Oregon, which was nevertheless claimed as in- disputably our property. On the other hand, it was felt, by a certain element in South Carolina, that if the northern states were to have ample room for expansion beyond the Rocky mountains, the southern states must have Texas added to their number as a counterpoise, or else the existence of slavery would be imperilled, and these fears were strengthened by the growth of anti-slavery senti- ment at the north. The Whigs, who by reason of their tariff policy found their chief strength at the north, were disposed to avail themselves of this anti-slavery sentiment, and accordingly declared themselves opposed to the annexation of Texas. In the mean time the political pressure brought to bear upon Mr. Webster in Massachusetts induced resignation of his portfolio, and he was succeeded in the state department by Hugh S. Legare, 9 May, 1843. In a few weeks Legare was succeeded by Mr. Upshur, after whose death, on 28 Feb., 1844. the place was filled by John C. Calhoun. After a negotiation extending over two years, a treaty was concluded, 12 April, 1844, with the gov- ernment of Texas, providing for annexation. The treaty was rejected by the senate, by a vote of 35 to 16, all the Whigs and seven Democrats voting in the negative. Thus by the summer of 1844 the alliance between the Whig party and Mr. Tyler's wing of the Democrats had passed away. At the same time the division among the Democrats, which had become marked during Jackson's administration, still continued ; and while the opposition to Mr. Tyler was strong enough to prevent his nomination in the Democratic national convention, which met at Baltimore on 27 May, 1844, on the other hand he was able to prevent the nomination of Mr. Van Buren, who had declared himself opposed to the immediate annexation of Texas. The result was the nomination of James K. Polk, as a kind of compromise candidate, in so far as he belonged to the " loco-foco " wing of the party, but was at the same time in favor of annexation. On the same day, 27 May, another convention at Baltimore nominated Mr. Tyler for a second term. He accepted the nomination in ordter to coerce the Democrats into submitting to him and his friends a formal invitation to re-enter the ranks ; and accordingly a meeting of Democrats at the Carleton house, New York, on 6 Aug., adopted a series of resolutions commending the principal acts of his administration, and entreating that in the general interests of the opposition he should withdraw. In response to this appeal, Mr. Tyler accordingly withdrew his name. The northern opposition to the annexation of Texas seemed to have weakened the strength of