Page:The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade.djvu/571

 the safety or to vindicate the honor of his country. There is, I trust, not one so base as not to regard himself and all he has to be forever and at all times subject to such a requisition. But would a war with Mexico, brought on under such circumstances, be a contest of that character? Could we hope to stand justified in the eyes of mankind for entering into it; more especially if its commencement is to be preceded by the appropriation to our own uses of the territory, the sovereignty of which is in dispute between two nations, one of which we are to join in the struggle? This, sir, is a matter of the gravest import, one in respect to which no American statesman or citizen can possibly be indifferent."

It was not long after this letter appeared, before it was apparent that Mr. Van Buren was to be abandoned. Movements were soon made in many places to prevent his nomination. Annexation was to southern democrats an object for which even Mr. Van Buren was not deemed too great a sacrifice. Meetings were held for the purpose of revoking the instructions which had been given to delegates to support Mr. Van Buren; and resolutions were passed recommending to them to cast their votes for men known and pledged to be in favor of annexation. In New York and other northern states, the "democracy" protested against these southern movements to defeat Mr. Van Buren.

Notwithstanding Mr. Clay's [sic]hostilty to the annexation of Texas, he was nominated unanimously in the whig convention. Mr. Van Buren did not fare so well in the democratic convention. He received a clear majority on the first ballot, but a rule of the convention required two-thirds. He was eventually sacrificed to make room for James K. Polk, who was in favor of the annexation.

Of course many of the northern democrats who had deprecated annexation, now became ardent advocates of the "great American measure," but there were some who still protested against it. The organ of this class was the New York Evening Post, whose editor, with six other gentlemen, issued a private circular to some of their friends in different parts of the state. The letter explains its object:

" — You will, doubtless, agree with us, that the late Baltimore convention placed the democratic party at the north in a position of great difficulty. We are constantly reminded that it rejected Mr. Van Buren, and nominated Mr. Polk, for reasons connected with the immediate annexation of Texas — reasons which had no relation to the principles of the party. Nor was that all. The convention went beyond the authority delegated to its members, and adopted a resolution on the subject of Texas (a subject not before the country when they were elected, upon which, therefore, they were not instructed,) which seeks to interpolate into the party creed a new doctrine, hitherto unknown among us, at war with some of our established principles, and abhorrent to the opinions and feelings of a great majority of northern freemen. In this position, what was the party of the north to do? Was it to reject the nominations, and abandon the contest? Or should it support the nominations, rejecting the untenable doctrine interpolated at the convention, and taking care that their support should be accompanied by such an expression of their opinion as to prevent its being misinterpreted? The latter alternative has been preferred, and we think wisely; for we conceive that a proper expression of their opinion will save their votes from misconstruction, and that proper