The Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1837-1867, 1848-10-07
MIR Van Buren's Anti-Texas
Letter.


to the annexation of Texas, written previous |
to the meeting of the Democratic National
Convention in 1874, is referred to on oil oc- !
casions as evidence Of his hostility to the fur
Their extension of Slavery. It furnishes
text for all selfsiyled free soil lecturers to
harp upon, and the readers Of Van Buren,
prints are RECALLED, weekly,with high-wrough (
eulogies on the man who nohly sacrificed the
Presidency on the altar of duty. Now this
sounds remarkably well, audit is great pity
that facts altogether fail to substantinte such
statements. We are not disposed TO find
any fault with that letter. 1t was well en-
ough, though by no means so decided in OPP
position 10 the Texas scheme was Mr.
Clay's Raleigh letter, which the nboltionists,
who now support MIR Van Buren,, declared
all through the canvass of 1914 committed
him to nothing-thut he was no more 10 be-
trusted on this question than James Il. Polk
himself Had MIR Van Buren's subsequent
conduct been in keeping with the scope and
tone of that letter, it would have been strong
evidence oftwo things, viz 4: LIST, that he wrote
the letter from principle, not from policy, and
Cd, that he might now he trusted 10y those
who are sincerely opposed to the further
spread of Slavery.
Ii is not Necessary to repeat the history Of
the Baltimore Convention of 1914. il is well
known that Mr. Van Buren, received major
ity of the votes cast, hut the adoption OF the
"two-thirds rule" deprived him of the nom
ination, and Mr. Polk WINS finally the success
fill candidate. He was nominated because
he was in favor Oft the annexation of Texas,
and for no other reason. lie was emphntIcally
the slavery eXtensionist candidate, and would
never have been thought ofbut for this issue.
Now what did Martin Van Buren, do-thc
man, who. MS his friends now claim, so "no-
bly, sacrificed the Presidency on tn nl,ur Of
duty" Did he carry out his opposition to
the extension Of slavery 10y consistently or
; posing the candidates who were nominated
expressly 10 extend it? Did he complete the
"sacrfce" Ivy cutting loose from his party,
and procluiming to the world thai he would
have no part nor lot in the Infamous scheme
of annexation Let him answer for himself
4 few weeks after the Baltimore Convention
he wrote n letter TO Ganesvoort Melville,
Esq. dated Lindenwald, June 3d, 1874, in
which we find the following passage, among
others of like Import
LET no one for moment suppose that
in thus yielding TO the prophecies of my po-
sition, (declinng to he present at public meet
ing) am in the slightest degree influenced
Ivy ukewnrmness much less hostility, To thC
success of the nomination TO which 1t j. the
purpose of those you represent 10 respond
M. - tlrt from lsttt tltfs fFlta
state of my feelings. ! have known both
Mcssrs. Polk and Dallas long and intimately.
y Concurring with them in the mnln, in the
political principles by which their public
: lives have been hitherto distinguished, am
sincerely DESTROYS of their success.
No personal or private feelings should ever
) induce us to withhold our support from nom
, nations, the success Of which would ho con
ducive TO The permanent interests Of the
country Those, therefore, who think rs
do, cannot, am sure, fail TO merge all minor
considerations III sincere and nndlsguised ct
forts to promote the success the candidates
NJ. VAN buren,"
Mr. Van Buren, wrote his anti-TeXas latter
in May, 1914, and in that letter his friends
profess to find evidence that lie was willing
to clay the Presidency upon the alter with
his eyes open" On the Sd day of June, not
more than one month after, he wrote the let
ter from which the extracts above are taken
urging his friends TO sustain "Polk, Dallas,
Texas and Oregon p Now what had occur
red in this short space of time 10 modify hIs
course ofaction so materially? Simply this;
the Baltimore Convention had assembled, and
gravely resolved that the RECOMMENDATION of
Texas" was fundamental doctrine of the
democratic party, and woe to the man, high
or low, who should dare to disregard its be-
hests Mr. Fan Buren, quietly submitted Is
it possible, then, taking these facts into con-
sideralon, to believe that Mr.. Van Buren,
was actuated solely by n stern sense of duty
when he wrote his anti-Texas letter? We
think not. 1t is well known 10 all who took
par: in the canvass of 1874 that, previous TO
: the meeting ofthe Baltimore Convention, the
proposal to annex Texas was universally con-
, demned Mt the North. Wings and Demo
t Gratis We'd with each other in their opposition.
The Democratic papers denounced it as ga
, scheme as black as ink, as bitter ms hell ~
In short no man could he found bold enough
to advocate the measure. Mr. Van buren,
saw this, and with the usual cunning, sought
to take advantage oft. He wrote his anti
) Texas letter expecting it would secure his
; nomination at Baltimore, and il did give him
a majority in the Convention. But the two
thirds rule was sprung upon him. and he
was defeated. For once he was conquered