|
The United States presidential election of 1844 was the 15th quadrennial presidential election, held from Friday, November 1, to Wednesday, December 4, 1844. Democrat James K. Polk defeated Whig Henry Clay in a close contest that turned on the controversial issue of slavery expansion through the annexation of the Republic of Texas.〔Miller, 1998, p. 481 "...pro-Texas southern Democrats () aggressively inject slavery into politics by their () campaign for Texas."〕〔Wilentz, 2008, p. 559:"Texas annexation () the overriding issue in the fight for the Democratic nomination."〕〔Finkelman, 2011, p. 26: "James K. Polk's victory over Henry Clay in 1844 was directly tied to the Texas annexation question."〕 The general election of 1844 took place in the midst of increasingly bitter congressional disputes over anti-slavery agitation, raising questions as to whether free-soil and slave-soil interests could coexist within a democratic republic.〔Freehling, 1991, p. 558: “Agitation over slavery, on both sides, was (the early 1840s ) fair play (as ) never before, anti-slavery radicals had successfully mobilized the principles of majoritarian democracy and many of its techniques – campaign newspapers, conventions, the entire machinery of popular electioneering – while attacking the great compromise over slavery on which the Democrats and Whigs based their survival.”〕 The campaign themes arose in direct response to incumbent President John Tyler's pursuit of Texas annexation as a slave state so as to undermine the unity of the Whig and Democratic parties in his bid to retain the White House.〔Wilentz, 2008, p. 567: Tyler's Secretary of State, John C. Calhoun, "...managed, in a presidential election, to polarize national politics along sectional lines" by pursuing Texas annexation. May 2008, p. 100: "Tyler planned to outflank the Whigs by gaining support from the Democratic Party or possibly creating a new party..." p. 119-120: "On May 27, 1844, Tyler's so-called Democratic-Republican Party...held its first (and last) presidential convention in an attempt to outflank the major Whig and Democratic Parties." Holt, 2005, p. 10: "...desirous of foiling his acerbic Whig antagonists...Tyler hit upon the annexation of Texas as an issue on which he might win the presidency in 1844." Wilentz, 2008, p. 559:"Tyler, in league with Secretaries of State Upshur and Calhoun moved "aggressively to promote the annexation of Texas, a polarizing policy the president hoped might revise his own fading political hopes." Merry, 2009, p. 67 Tyler “by introducing the powerful Texas issue into American politics could ride the resulting political wave and win a presidential term in his own right.”〕 The Whig Party nominee Henry Clay adopted an anti-annexation platform on the principle of preserving North-South sectional unity and to avoid war by respecting Mexico's claims to Texas.〔Holt, 2005 p. 10: Clay attacked Tyler's annexation treaty because it would "erode the sectional comity on which the Union was based..." and "would inevitably produce a war with Mexico."〕〔Wilentz, 2008, p. 427: Clay was committed to "opposing the Calhoun-Tyler () treaty" and would only consider annexation with "no hazard of war" and "general concurrence" among Americans.〕 Clay's attempts to finesse his anti-annexation position on Texas alienated many voters in the South and West where annexation support was strongest〔Finkelman, 2011m p. 26: Deviating slightly form his opposition to annexation "cost () votes in the South and West, where support for annexation was strong."〕 while some Northern Whigs in swing states shifted support to the anti-slavery Liberty Party.〔Finkelman, 2011, p. 22: Clay "waffled" on Texas annexation" and "Had the Liberty () voters supported Clay, he would have won New York () and the election."〕 Democrat Martin Van Buren, his party's presumptive presidential contender, was ousted at the Democratic National Convention, failing to meet the demands of southern Democrat expansionists for a leader favoring the immediate acquisition of Texas.〔Freeling, 1991, p. 429: "Could the black-belt South nullify Van Buren's national majority in the party? The answer was (). Widmer,2005 p. 149: "...a great (Party ) North-South alliance rose up as one against (Buren )" and "laid the groundwork for a palace revolt" at the convention.〕 Democrat James K. Polk emerged as America's first dark horse nominee〔Widmer, 2005, p. 150 "...the original 'dark horse' candidate."〕 running on a platform that embraced America's popular commitment to territorial expansionism, referred to as Manifest Destiny.〔Wilentz, 2008, p. 572: "Polk stood for the () annexation as an opportunity to expand not slavery but freedom of American democratic instututions..." Brown, 1966, p. 33: "After 1844 the party of the Jeffersonian formula sustained itself in the face of the slavery issue by giving vent to its expansionist tendencies..." Widmer, 2005, p. 148: "Yet expansion was enormously popular among a people straining for largeness...it was the catnip of the 1840s, perfectly captured by the electric phrase "Manifest Destiny".〕 Polk successfully linked the US-British boundary dispute over the partition of Oregon Territory, with the divisive Texas annexation debate. In doing so, the Democratic Party nominee united the anti-slavery Northern expansionists, who demanded Oregon as free-soil, with pro-slavery Southern expansionists, who insisted on acquiring Texas as a slave state. In doing so, Polk narrowly outpolled the Whig Party nominee Clay by thirty-eight thousand votes.〔Henderson, 2007, p.139: “After a bitter campaign, Polk won the presidency by a scant thirty-eight thousand votes.”〕〔Wilentz, 2008, p. 571: "Above all, the () party's aggressively pro-annexationist platform pressed not only for the annexation of Texas, but for a favorable settlement of outstanding disputes over the Oregon () border as well."〕 Party alliances were shaken by the Texas Controversy, but partisan loyalties among Congressional Democrats were rallied sufficiently in the aftermath of Polk's victory to pass a joint House-Senate resolution on Texas annexation.〔Wilentz, 2008, p. 576: "On February 27, 1845, the Senate voted to admit Texas...upon party lines. The next day on even stricter party lines, the House added assent..."〕 Texas would enter the Union as the 28th state in 1846.〔Merk, 1978, p. 308〕 This was the last presidential election to be held on different days in different states. Starting with the presidential election of 1848, all states held the election on the same date in November. It is also the only presidential election in which the winner, Polk, lost both his birth state of North Carolina and his state of residence, Tennessee, which he lost by only 123 votes. It is the only presidential election in which both major party nominees were former Speakers of the House. == Background == 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「United States presidential election, 1844」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|