Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

from 909 to 5147. This increase arose probably by emigration from eastern states. Deducting the independent vote for Smith, and the scattering, the direct whig Congressional vote was 27,868,

Democratic.

against 42.289, in 1842. In the 5th dis trict the decline is the most considerable, having been 8,180 for Browning, in 1842, and but 6,864, as above, for Vandewater.

INDIANA ELECTION, 1843-1846.
Whig.

Abolition.

1843.. Whitcomb....60,714.... Bigger....58,701.... Deming.. 1,684. Marshall..60,067. .... Stevens....2,278.

1846.... Increase..

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

64,104. 3,390

The change in the votes has not been so marked in Indiana. The gain in the democratic vote holds its fair proportion to the whole number of votes, viz., 64 per cent. of the increase. The whole number of votes cast in these two states, in 1842, was 205,920; of these 106,322 were democratic, or 51.6 per cent. In 1846 the whole number was 227,111; of these 122,680 1842

Morehead..... 39,586 Henry..... ..34,994.

Majority....... 4,592

1,366

Total vote. .121,099 126,449

[blocks in formation]

were democratic, or 54 per cent. The proportion of democratic votes, to the whole number cast, has, therefore, increased 2.4 per cent.

NORTH CAROLINA ELECTION.-The of ficial returns from all the counties in North Carolina give results as follows, compared with previous years:

1844
Graham.... .41,030
Hoke........37,346

3,684

1846

W. A. Graham......43,129 J. B. Shepard.......35,437

7,692

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Second District. Itawamba, Monroe, Chickasaw, Yallobousha, Carroll, Choctaw, Oktibbeha, Lowndes, Noxubee-51,102. Third District. Winston, Attala, Holmes, Washington, Issaquena, Yazoo, Madison, Leake, Neshoba, Kemper, Lauderdale, Newton, Rankin, Hinds, Warren -63,306.

Fourth District. Claiborne, Jefferson, Clark, Copiah, Simpson, Wayne, Smith, Jasper, Jones, Covington, Lawrence, Franklin, Adams, Wilkinson, Amity, Pike, Marion, Perry, Greene, Jackson, Harrison, Hancock-57,852.

They also passed an apportionment bill, allowing 92 representatives and 32 senators-nearly the same bill advocated by the northern portion of the state; passed by a vote of 54 to 59 in the lower house, and by 21 to 11 in the senate.

[blocks in formation]

Third.-Monroe, Lenawee, Hillsdale, Branch-4 senators.

Fourth.-St. Joseph, Cass, Berrien, Van Buren-2 senators.

Fifth.-Allegan, Kalamazoo, Calhoun2 senators.

Sixth.-Oakland, Lapeer, Genesee, Shiauanee, Saginaw, Mackinaw, Chippewa4 senators.

Seventh.-Ingham, Eaton, Barry, Clinton, Ionia, Kent, Ottawa-2 senators.

The ratio of representation was fixed at one for every 5,000 white persons in each county, and one for a fraction of more

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Constitution rejected by........8,460

Members of Congress.

1st Dis. James W. Bowlin........7,466 Mr. Milburn.... Uriel Wright, (native). 2d Dis. *John Jameson..

66

3d Dist. James S. Green.....

..1,672 ...5.265

...8,156

John G. Miller..

..6.981

..8,624

4th Dis.

[blocks in formation]

Wayne, Macomb, St.

8,884

[blocks in formation]

Second.-Jackson, Washtenaw, Living

ston-4 senators.

5th Dis. *John S. Phelps.

Campbell..

* Democrats.

OURSELVES. In our last number, not anticipating the peculiar turn of the elections, which, while resulting in a majority of 13,000 for the Democratic lieutenant governor, should leave Governor Wright in a minority of 10,000, we confidently predicted his re-election before the appearance of another number. This has given rise to a rumor that the publication of the Review is suspended. The appearance of the present number will falsify that rumor, and this notice will explain its origin. We trust the "wish was not father to the thought," and assure our readers that the day is yet distant when we shall cease to labor in our vocation.

[blocks in formation]

THE elections show, in their results, the workings of those local causes and influences in relation to state politics, which remained dormant, so long as great national questions required the united and active support of all patriotic voters. It is but natural that those political aspirants who sustained so signal and overwhelming a defeat at the elections of 1844, when the people, en masse, declared for the maintenance of the national honor in the conduct of our foreign relations, against bank corruptions in the management of the federal finances, against manufacturing monopolies, and agricultural and commercial oppression in the administration of the customs, should seek consolation for their great overthrow in the temporary reverses that have overtaken their adversaries, and that the buoyancy of hope should raise illusive expectations on foundations too weak to sustain the weight of reason, or to endure the analysis of truth. It is not in the nature of things to suppose, but that great triumphs, and the consciousness of the oft-tried efficiency of imposing strength, should produce apathy in the many and dissensions among the few, resulting in reverses on such local questions as failed to rouse a general interest; but that minor questions decided, not by an accession of federal votes, but through the non-voting of

No. CII.

those who placed a veto on federal pretensions in 1844, should be considered as a reversion of that decision, is rather unreasonable.

Such, however, is the deduction attempted to be drawn from the state elections by the great federal leaders; as if the adversaries of an army should determine its probable destination by the counter-marching of the companies in the formation of the regiments of which it is composed. The attempt to identify the multifarious interests of individual state politics with the line of policy marked out by the people of all the states, for the guidance of the federal government, betrays a conscious weakness, and a desire to attain indirectly that which cannot be reached by an open approach. In 1844, the three great questions, of annexation, the independent treasury, and the tariff, were clearly and directly submitted to the people of the whole Union. They returned a response in favor of the two former and against the last, in a manner too emphatic to be mistaken; and, as a consequence of their decision, an empire was added to the Union, the Treasury emancipated from bank domination, and odious anti-commercial taxes have been removed from the consumers of goods. These questions were settled definitively, and the line of policy they marked out is decisive of

the future course of the government. Elections have now, however, again taken place in 13 states, and in four of these there has been a federalist gain in members of Congress, while in the others there has either been no choice or no changes.

These ephemeral triumphs have, however, given an impetus to the opposition, and awakened hopes in party leaders, that the object for which the great battle of 1844 was fought and wor, may now be defeated. Scarcely have the returns of the state elections assumed a definite shape when we find Mr. Webster, from Boston, Mr. Clayton, from Wilmington, and Mr. Clay, from Kentucky, fulminating decrees for a great federalist's rally, in an attack upon the measures ratified by the people at the elections of 1844. Mr. Webster, at Boston, points with triumph at the recent elections of NewYork, Pennsylvania and Ohio, as indicative of a renunciation, by the people of those states, of the principles established two years previously. The assumption is not borne out by the facts. That the three states mentioned, display a temporary federalist ascendancy is clear, but that the character of the election can in any way be supposed expressive of opinion upon national policy, is not the case. The state of New-York presents a condition of affairs not unlike that in which the Union found itself in the contest of 1840. A corrupt money power had produced numerous interests at war with a sound policy, and a regular government. The easy virtue of unscrupulous leaders, combined hordes of needy adventurers in one tumultuous mass, whose eager onslaught gave triumph, but not success. Victory was more fatal than defeat to the ill-assorted factions that achieved it. The hope of reward was an admirable stimulant in the struggle, but a dangerous substitute for principle, when possession brought with it its responsibilities. Disappointed was the charm which dissolved the party strength into its original elements, and 1844 witnessed the recognition of sound principles by the people. It is ever the case, that where federalism gains a hold, it plants those dragon teeth which, in after times, bear armed men to the jeopardy of public rights. In the state of New-York fed

eralist rulers began in 1838 that wasteful policy by which a large state debt, great injury to public credit, and direct taxation, were entailed upon the people of the state. Approaching insolvency was avoided only by a prompt change of policy. The projection of public works, involving an expenditure of $50,000,000 of public money, in addition to the then existing debt, could not, however, but enlist in favor of the projectors a numerous array of partisans. The owners of property, the contractors, brokers, builders and expectants of all classes, created naturally a formidable coalition in favor of the patronage of government as administered by federalists. The insolvency of surrounding states, and the immediate danger of New-York, with gross and growing corruption on all sides, afforded an opportunity to check the career and change the policy of the government. Although the policy of 1842 apparently fixed the future course of the state in relation to public works, it did not destroy the hopes of those who hankered after the "flesh pots." Their unseen, but effective influence, passed the bill in 1845 to revive partially those works, and it was vetoed by the firmness of the Governor; but the ramifications that produced it, remained as the channels through which federalism might form a coalition of all the discordant elements that had grown up in the state, as the fruits of a long season of prosperity. The evils which grew out of the continuance of feudal tenures, engrafted upon institutions incompatible with their existence, were skilfully exaggerated, and from antirentism the transition was easy to the denial of all individual right in real property. "Vote yourself a farm," was readily substituted for "vote yourself no rent," by those in possession of no property, leased or otherwise. The advocates of the abolition of rents, and of the community of property, were readily pledged to support him who should pawn to them the pardoning power, for the use of the violators of the law and the murderers of its officer while in the execution of his duty, in the defence of property. Influences the most unseemly conspired to produce nominations the least to be desired, and while federalism, backed by aggrarianism, anti-rentism, and all whom the hope

of reward drew to an adventurer's flag, furiously assaulted the polls; the evil influence of disappointed pensioners upon public money, ran like a leprosy through the state, paralyzing exertion, dissipating strength, dividing constituencies, and aiding the treacherous efforts of disappointed nominees. The result could not, under these circumstances, have been otherwise than it was. Amidst this mass of intrigue there was no great principle at stake, or important question of national policy to draw people to the polls; and the whole number of votes cast for Governor was 100,900 votes less than in 1844. The successful candidate of federalism and its allies, received 40,462 less than the defeated candidate of the federalist party in 1844. Of the congressional members, federalism gained 13, and these 13 successful candidates received 70,208 votes, while the defeated federalist candidates for the same districts in 1844 obtained 88,491. The democratic vote in these districts in 1844 was 98,536, and in 1846 but 69,686, a diminution of 28,850 votes by bolting and treachery. But say the federal leaders in their late edicts, these are the indications that the new tariff is unpopular. Then a majority of 13,C00 for Gardiner indicates that it is popular. It appears, however, that even if the tariff could in any way have been connected as a test question, six members who voted against the new tariff, or in favor of that of 1842, were defeated by members of opposite politics. Three federalist allies, who voted against the new tariff, have been succeeded by democrats, and democrats who voted with the federalists on that question, have been superseded. this is expressive of public opinion, it is not in favor of the assumptions of federalist leaders.

If

Pennsylvania was not exempt from the disorganising influence of local politics, where there was no absorbing national question to take precedence. A diminution in the aggregate vote, however, there, as in other states, marks the apathy of the electors. From the singular results of the returns of the congressional members, it would appear, however, that the tariff question did influence the votes, and the effects of that influence are seen in the almost universal condemnation of those democrats who voted against the

new tariff. There were 12 democratic members, and of these but 4 were re elected; one of these voted for the new tariff, and he is the only one of the number reëlected by an enhanced majority. Mr. Wilmot, of the 12th district, composed of Tioga, Bradford and Susquehanna counties, received 5,599 votes, and his opponent 4,857. The federal member of the 3d district, who voted against the new tariff, has been superseded by a democrat. If these results grew out of the tariff, it could only have been in consequence of the wilful misrepresentations of the people, and not the iron-masters of Pennsylvania; and those who voted against the new tariff, have met their rebuke at the ballot box.

In Ohio, similar causes have produced like results; and the federal majority, which was 24,000 for Harrison, and reduced to 5,940 for Clay in 1844, has not been brought lower than 2000 for the Governor. This grew out of divisions in Pickaway, Starke and Wayne; and the absence of 2,500 patriots with the army in Mexico, giving a practical support with their blood and treasure to that war which the absence of their votes is supposed to condemn.

These are the triumphs that have called forth loud vauntings on the part of the federalist leaders, and induced them to rally under the cry of the repeal of the new tariff, ere its beneficent operation in promoting trade shall have too firmly fixed it in the affections of the people. The federalist party, in relation to the tariff, are precisely now where they stood in relation to a national bank in March, 1841. It will be remembered that when the late national bank resumed its payments for the last time, in January, 1841, most of the banking institutions at the south and west were in a state of suspension, and therefore, the internal exchanges, as expressed in their depreciated paper promises, used as local currencies, exhibited great confusion and very high rates. The revolution of 1840 was to bring back federalist patronage to the United States Bank; and a strenuous effort was made to whitewash its dilapidated credit, in order that, on the advent of the new government to power in March, the federal deposites might be restored to its vaults, and the credit and means thus bestowed upon it by government patronage, were to be

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

This state of exchanges was disastrous to commercial interests, and long and loud were the lamentations sent up in relation to the want of a national bank, to regulate them. The great federalist leaders proclaimed that, without a bank, exchanges would never again be uniform and low. They had, however, some suspicion that exchanges would regulate themselves, unless they made haste to do it by law; and an extra session was called, mostly for that purpose. The discordant elements that placed federalism in power were not, however, sufficiently adhesive to perfect its victory; and the bank not being created, exchanges regulated themselves; that is to say, as bank after bank was compelled to resume its payments in specie, its promises became worth as much as individual bills drawn against produce, and the depreciation, falsely called the difference of exchange, disappeared. From the date of this resumption until now, the rates have been-Philadelphia par, Richmond 1 per cent., Mobile, NewOrleans par a 4, Nashville 24, St. Louis 14, Cincinnati 2. The same hot haste which then urged the sudden creation of a new bank, lest the quackery of its alleged regulating powers should be made manifest through the operations of trade, is now apparent in relation to the new tariff. It has not yet began to operate. and already the cry of repeal is raised by federalist leaders, lest its operation should, through the prosperity with which it will be attended, dispel the illusion under which many labor in relation to the profits of taxation, and the benefits of restriction. It is the necessity of altering the new tariff before it makes

its own advantages apparent, in order to save the theory of protection, that induces the eager and reckless haste of federalist leaders. Mr. Webster, in his late speech at Boston, lays great stress on the result in New-York; and said, as reported in the Boston Courier, as follows:

"Mr. Webster contended that what had brought about the changes there, was a general dissatisfaction with, and want of confidence in the general government, under its present administration. The change had been wrought by considerate and reflective men, not as individuals, but in masses and troops, voting for the whig candidates; they had taken the whig showing their disapprobation of the war ground as the most effectual mode of and the tariff of 1846, and had given up their adhesion to third parties, and had become whigs out and out.

"While the governor was elected by some eleven, twelve, or, perhaps, fifteen thousand majority, the whigs have elected two-thirds of the whole number of memthe vote for those members run far ahead bers of Congress, and in every district of the vote for governor."

Now, if we compare as above the votes cast for the successful federalist Congressmen, we find them 12,000 votes less than those obtained by the defeated candidates of the same party in 1844. Where, then, are the "masses and troops" that have become federalists? Again, Mr. Webster states, that in every district the vote for Congressmen exceeded that for Governor. In 12 districts, the reverse is the case. In the three districts, 10th. 13th, 25th, the vote for federalist Congressmen was 21,375, and for Mr. Young, 22,404. In the 19th district, where a democrat, who voted against the new tariff, was beaten by a whig, the vote for the federal Congressman exceeded that for Mr. Young 115. But the democratic candidate, who voted against the new tariff, received 424 less votes than Governor Wright, who received a majority over Mr. Young in this district.

To opposition to the tariff alone has not been ascribed the alleged change in popular sentiment. The Independent Treasury and the Mexican war are special objects of attack under the new impulse derived from the late elections. By some mysterious agency, these great national measures are supposed to be connected with anti-rentisin and

« AnteriorContinuar »