Some who opposed mob violence became active abolitionists; others were led to defend the rights of abolitionists because to do otherwise would encourage anarchy and general disorder.The same was true of those who defended the right of petition and the free use of the mails and the entire list of the fundamental rights of freemen which were threatened by the crusade against abolitionists.Birney's contention that unless the slave is freed no one can be free was thus vindicated: the issue involved vastly more than the mere emancipation of slaves.
The attack made in defense of slavery upon the rights of freemen was early recognized as involving civil war unless peaceable emancipation could be attained.So soon as John Quincy Adams faced the new spirit in Congress, he was convinced that it meant probable war.As early as May, 1836, he warned the South, saying:
"From the instant that your slaveholding States become the theater of war, civil, servile, or foreign, from that moment the war powers of the Constitution extend to interference with the institution of slavery." This sentiment he reiterated and amplified on various occasions.The South was duly warned that an attempt to disrupt the Union would involve a war of which emancipation would be one of the consequences.With the exception of Garrison and a few of his personal followers, abolitionists were unionists: they stood for the perpetual union of the States.
This is not the place to give an extended account of the Mexican War.* There are, however, certain incidents connected with the annexation of Texas and the resulting war which profoundly affected the crusade against slavery.Both Lundy and Birney in their missions to promote emancipation through the process of colonization believed that they had unearthed a plan on the part of Southern leaders to acquire territory from Mexico for the purpose of extending slavery.This discovery coincided with the suppression of abolition propaganda in the South.Hitherto John Quincy Adams had favored the western expansion of our territory.
He had labored diligently to make the Rio Grande the western boundary of the Louisiana Purchase at the time of the treaty with Spain in 1819.But though in 1825 he had supported a measure to purchase Texas from Mexico, under the new conditions he threw himself heartily against the annexation of Texas, and in 1838 he defeated in the House of Representatives a resolution favoring annexation.To this end Adams occupied the morning hour of the House each day from the 16th of June to the 7th of July, within two days of the time fixed for adjournment.This was only a beginning of his fight against the extension of slavery.There was no relenting in his opposition to pro-slavery demands until he was stricken down with paralysis in the streets of Boston, in November, 1846.He never again addressed a public assembly.But he continued to occupy his seat in Congress until February 23, 1848.
* See "Texas and the Mexican War" (in "The Chronicles of America").
The debate inaugurated in Congress by Adams and others over the extension of slave territory rapidly spread to the country at large, and interest in the question became general.Abolitionists were thereby greatly stimulated to put into practice their professed duty of seeking to accomplish their ends by political action.Their first effort was to secure recognition in the regular parties.The Democrats answered in their platform of 1840by a plank specifically denouncing the abolitionists, and the Whigs proved either noncommittal or unfriendly.The result was that abolitionists organized a party of their own in 1840 and nominated James G.Birney for the Presidency.Both of the older parties during this campaign evaded the issue of the annexation of Texas.In 1844 the Whigs again refrained from giving in their platform any official utterance on the Texas issue, though they were understood to be opposed to annexation.The Democrats adroitly asserted in their platform their approval of the re-annexation of Texas and reoccupation of Oregon.There was a shadowy prior claim to both these regions, and by combining them in this way the party avoided any odious partiality towards the acquisition of slave territory.But the voters in both parties had become interested in the specific question whether the country was to enter upon a war of conquest whose primary object should be the extension of slavery.In the North it became generally understood that a vote for Henry Clay, the Whig candidate, was an expression of opposition to annexation.This issue, however, was not made clear in the South.In the absence of telegraph and daily paper it was quite possible to maintain contradictory positions in different sections of the country.But since the Democrats everywhere openly favored annexation, the election of their candidate, James K.Polk, was generally accepted as a popular approval of the annexation of Texas.
Indeed, action immediately followed the election and, before the President-elect had been inaugurated, the joint resolution for the annexation of Texas passed both Houses of Congress.
The popular vote was almost equally divided between Whigs and Democrats.Had the vote for Birney, who was again the candidate of the Liberty party, been cast for Clay electors, Clay would have been chosen President.The Birney vote was over sixty-two thousand.The Liberty party, therefore, held the balance of power and determined the result of the election.
The Liberty party has often been censured for defeating the Whigs at this election of 1844.But many incidents, too early forgotten by historians, go far to justify the course of the leaders.
