New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-09-22
THE DIVISION IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
OF NEW-YORK.

THE DIVISION IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
OF NEw-YORK.
Plain men out Of our State often profess to be puz-
zled by the Politics of NewYork, with their zigzag,
wayering party lines aud their uncOuth designations.
What the trouble nOu 2? is very general inquiry at
present in view of the fact that the recent Democratic
State Convention at Syracuse split into two and nomi-
mated two distinct tickets while passing Resolves
almost identical in terms and purpOrt All are aware
that this split is the ougrowth of feud of several
years duration, patched up and pastered over from
time to time but never thoroughly healed and perpet
ually threatening to break out afresh We propose,
for the benefit of younger politically less Observ
ant readers to give as clear account as of
its causes and origin
In the year 1874, the intrgues of John Tyler & Co
Lad brought before the Senate for Ratification Treaty
providing for the Annexation of Texas to the United
States. The country was considerably agitaed there
by, the predominant feeling in the South and South
West being favorable, while in the North and East it
was unfavorable to such Annexation Mr. Van Buren,
was a candidate for denomination to the Presidency
by the Democratic National Convention to
bic at Baltimore-and, being required to define his
position with regard to Texas, came out decidedly
against Annexation without the prior assent of Mexico
as an act of bad faith, aggression and hostility The
delegation to Baltimore from this State had already
been chosen, and instructed to support the express
idents denomination but there were good many
among us who even prior to and apart from the Texas
question, were averse to having him again re-
nominated In this crisis, great Anti-Texas
meeting was held in our City, wherein the
leading friends of Mr.. Van Buren, active
aud conspicuous Silas Wright, who regarded
as the devoted friend of Van Buren,, was decided
and effective in procuring the rejection of Tyler's
Annexation Treaty by the Senate. In view of these
facts, when the Baltimore Convention met, many pro-
Texas Delegates who had been nstructedto vote for
Mr.. Van Buren,, went decidedly against him. and,
though he had majority of votes cast the first bal
lot his nomination was prevented by the two-thrds
rule just before adopted; his vote steadily fell off
the succeeding ballots until at last Col James X Polk
of Tennessee-an avowed, unequiyocal champion of
Annexation-was nominated for President and reso-
luton passed recognizing the remuneration of Texas
as one of the leading aims of American Democracy.
The friends of Mr.. Van Buren,, though beaten at Bal
timore, were still dominant in State. They could
easily have defeated Polk had they fit But after
some deiberaiion, manifesto appeared bearing the
signatures Of Benz +. Butler, John w. Edmonds and
other manates in the Van Buren, household, advising
their followers TO support Polk for President but take
care al the same time TO elect Members of Congress
who would oppose Annexation upon any conditions
akin to those assented to by Tyler. This manifesto
caused much feeling in the antyan Buren, wing of the
party (which had grown rapidly in this quarter since
Vans defeat at BaltimOre) aud was more decidedly
resented at the South Still strong was the aversion
OF many of our Van Buren, Democrats to Annexation
that this State was barely carried against Clay and
Polk thus elected byputting Silas Wright on the Demo-
cratic ticket candidate for Governor, and thus
curing the cooperation of the soreheaded members of
the party. Mr.. Wright made several strong speeches
during the canvass proclaiming his hostility to Annex
alton under any circumstances which did not secure
fair share of its territory TO Free Labor and great
Mass Convention of the Van Buren, Democracy was
held at Herkmer late in the autumn, which undertook
TO pledge the party to resist Annexation except on con-
ditons which should the Free States equal
participation with the Slaveholding in the territories
thus acquired Under these pledges, the State was
carried for Polk by 5000 and for Wright by 10000 ma
jority.
Col Polk was elected and Texas annexed Wright
being thus taken out of the Senate and his place and
Tallmadges who had also resgned) filed by Gov
Bouck with H. A. Foster and D. s. Dickinson both be-
longing to the anti Van Buren, and proTexas wing OF
the party No conditions in favor of Free Soil were
insisted on by them, and none imposed. BY the
influence and power of Col Polk though before he had
been naugurated, Texas was put through and oppos-
ton in the party sienced. Then QS46) followed the
War with Mexico, and the attempt lS47 grant the
President S300O,000 wherewth to negotiate peace,
which was defeated by the Proviso appended in the
House on motion of Mr.. Wilmot of Pa importing that
all territory to be acquired from Mexico BY the con-
templaed Treaty must be and remain FREE territory.
Nearly quite all the Members from this State voted
for this Proviso.
The meeting of the Democratic State Convention the
ensuing FAN (Oct ? AZ was the occasion of an ami
mated contest Several questions were cOmmingledin
the struggle but the main issue was the predominance
or decadenee Of the Van Buren, dynasty There were
several contested seats and or three DAYS were
spent in settling them but the antVan Buren, or Hun
kr wing gained the ascendancy, put Robert H. Morris
in the chair and nominated full Hunker ticket They