Editing Whig Party (United States) (section)

== History ==
{{Main|History of the United States Whig Party}}

===Creation, 1833–1836===
{{Further|Presidency of Andrew Jackson|Second Party System}}
[[File:Daniel Webster.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Daniel Webster]], a leading Whig from [[New England]]]]

Shortly after Jackson's re-election, South Carolina passed a measure to "[[Nullification (U.S. Constitution)|nullify]]" the [[Tariff of 1832]], beginning the [[Nullification Crisis]]. Jackson strongly denied the right of South Carolina to nullify federal law, but the crisis was resolved after Congress passed the [[Tariff of 1833]].<ref name="Holt 1999, p. 20">Holt (1999), p. 20.</ref> The Nullification Crisis briefly scrambled the partisan divisions that had emerged after 1824, as many within the Jacksonian coalition opposed President Jackson's threats of force against South Carolina, while some opposition leaders like Daniel Webster supported them.{{sfn|Cole|1993|pp=178–180}} 

The name "Whig" was first suggested for Jackson's opponents by [[James Watson Webb]], editor of the ''Courier and Enquirer'' of New York City.<ref>[[Claude G. Bowers]], ''The Party Battles of the Jackson Period'', [https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/72299/pg72299-images.html p.357] ([[Houghton Mifflin Harcourt|Houghton Mifflin Co.]] 1922) (retrieved Jul.7, 2024)</ref> In South Carolina and other states, those opposed to Jackson began to form small "Whig" parties.<ref name=" Holt 1999, p. 20"/> The Whig label implicitly compared "King Andrew" to King [[George III of the United Kingdom|George III]], the [[List of British monarchs|King of Great Britain]] at the time of the [[American Revolution]].{{sfn|Cole|1993|pp=211–213}}

Jackson's decision to remove government deposits from the national bank{{efn|Though Jackson had vetoed a re-charter bill, the bank still retained federal deposits at the start of his second term.{{sfn|Cole|1993|pp=190–193}} The national bank's federal charter expired in 1836.{{sfn|Cole|1993|pp=209–211}}}} ended any possibility of a Webster-Jackson alliance and helped to solidify partisan lines.{{sfn|Cole|1993|pp=202–203}} The removal of the deposits drew opposition from both pro-bank National Republicans and [[states' rights]] Southerners like [[Willie Person Mangum]] of North Carolina, the latter of whom accused Jackson of flouting the Constitution.<ref>Holt (1999), p. 24.</ref> In late 1833, Clay began to hold a series of dinners with opposition leaders to settle on a candidate to oppose [[Martin Van Buren]], the likely Democratic nominee in the [[1836 United States presidential election|1836 presidential election]]. While Jackson's opponents could not agree on a single presidential candidate, they coordinated in the Senate to oppose Jackson's initiatives.<ref>Holt (1999), p. 26.</ref> Historian Michael Holt writes that the "birth of the Whig Party" can be dated to Clay and his allies taking control of the Senate in December 1833.<ref name="holtbirth">Holt (1999), pp. 26–27.</ref>

The National Republicans, including Clay and Webster, formed the core of the Whig Party, but many Anti-Masons like [[William H. Seward]] of New York and [[Thaddeus Stevens]] of Pennsylvania also joined. Several prominent Democrats defected to the Whigs, including Mangum, former Attorney General [[John M. Berrien|John Berrien]], and [[John Tyler]] of Virginia.{{sfn|Cole|1993|pp=211–213}} The Whig Party's first significant action was to [[Censure in the United States|censure]] Jackson for the removal of the national bank deposits, thereby establishing opposition to Jackson's executive power as the organizing principle of the new party.<ref name="Holt 1999, pp. 27–28"/>

In doing so, the Whigs were able to shed the elitist image that had persistently hindered the National Republicans.<ref>Holt (1999), p. 30.</ref> Throughout 1834 and 1835, the Whigs successfully incorporated National Republican and Anti-Masonic state-level organizations and established new state party organizations in Southern states like North Carolina and Georgia.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 34–35.</ref> The Anti-Masonic heritage of the Whigs included a distrust of behind-the-scenes political maneuvering by party bosses instead of encouraging direct appeals to the people through gigantic rallies, parades, and rhetorical rabble-rousing.<ref>Sean Wilentz, ''The Politicians and the Egalitarians: The Hidden History of American Politics'' (2017) p 141.</ref>

=== Rise, 1836–1841 ===
{{Further|Presidency of Martin Van Buren}}
[[File:William Henry Harrison daguerreotype edit.jpg|thumb|upright|[[William Henry Harrison]], a two-time presidential candidate who became the first Whig president in 1841 but died just one month into office]]

Early successes in various states made many Whigs optimistic about victory in 1836, but an improving economy bolstered Van Buren's standing ahead of the election.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 36–37.</ref> The Whigs also faced the difficulty of uniting former National Republicans, Anti-Masons, and states' rights Southerners around one candidate, and the party suffered an early blow when Calhoun announced that he would refuse to support any candidate opposed to the doctrine of nullification.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 38–39.</ref> Northern Whigs cast aside both Clay and Webster in favor of General [[William Henry Harrison]], a former senator who had led U.S. forces in the 1811 [[Battle of Tippecanoe]].<ref name="Holt 1999, pp. 40–42">Holt (1999), pp. 40–42.</ref>

Though he had not previously been affiliated with the National Republicans, Harrison indicated that he shared the party's concerns over Jackson's executive power and favored federal investments in infrastructure.<ref name="Holt 1999, pp. 40–42"/> Southern Whigs coalesced around Senator [[Hugh Lawson White]], a long-time Jackson ally who opposed Van Buren's candidacy.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 42–43.</ref> Ultimately, Van Buren won a majority of the electoral and popular vote in the 1836 election, though the Whigs improved on Clay's 1832 performance in the South and West.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 45–46.</ref>

Shortly after Van Buren took office, an economic crisis known as the [[Panic of 1837]] struck the nation.<ref>Holt (1999), p. 61.</ref> Land prices plummeted, industries laid off employees, and banks failed. According to historian [[Daniel Walker Howe]], the economic crisis of the late 1830s and early 1840s was the most severe recession in U.S. history until the [[Great Depression]].{{sfn|Howe|2007|pp=504–505}} Van Buren's economic response centered on establishing the [[Independent Treasury]] system, essentially a series of vaults that would hold government deposits.{{sfn|Wilson|1984|pp=58–62}} As the debate over the Independent Treasury continued, [[William Cabell Rives]] and some other Democrats who favored a more activist government defected to the Whig Party, while Calhoun and his followers joined the Democratic Party.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 67–68.</ref> Whig leaders agreed to hold the party's first national convention in December 1839 in order to select the Whig presidential nominee.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 92–93.</ref>

[[File:ElectoralCollege1840.svg|thumb|[[William Henry Harrison]] defeated [[Martin Van Buren]] in the [[1840 United States presidential election|1840 presidential election]], thereby becoming the first Whig president]]

By early 1838, Clay had emerged as the front-runner due to his southern support and spirited opposition to Van Buren's Independent Treasury.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 93–94.</ref> A recovering economy convinced other Whigs to support Harrison, who was generally seen as the Whig candidate best able to win over Democrats and new voters.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 97–98.</ref> With the crucial support of Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania and [[Thurlow Weed]] of New York, Harrison won the presidential nomination on the fifth ballot of the [[1839 Whig National Convention]].<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 102–103.</ref>

For vice president, the Whigs nominated John Tyler, a former states' rights Democrat selected for the Whig ticket primarily because other Southern supporters of Clay refused to serve as Harrison's running mate.<ref>Holt (1999), p. 104.</ref> Log cabins and hard cider became the dominant symbols of the Whig campaign as the party sought to portray Harrison as a man of the people.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 105–107.</ref> The Whigs also assailed Van Buren's handling of the economy. They argued that traditional Whig policies, such as the restoration of a national bank and the implementation of protective tariff rates, would help to restore the economy.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 107–108.</ref> With the economy still in a downturn, Harrison decisively defeated Van Buren, taking a wide majority of the electoral vote and just under 53 percent of the popular vote.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 112–113.</ref>

=== Harrison and Tyler, 1841–1845 ===
{{Further|Presidency of John Tyler}}
[[File:John Tyler.png|thumb|President [[John Tyler]] clashed with congressional Whigs and was expelled from the party.]]
With the election of the first Whig presidential administration in the party's history, Clay and his allies prepared to pass ambitious domestic policies such as the restoration of the national bank, the distribution of federal land sales revenue to the states, a national bankruptcy law, and increased tariff rates.<ref>Holt (1999), p. 126.</ref> Harrison died just one month into his term, thereby elevating Vice President Tyler to the presidency.<ref name="Holt 1999, pp. 127–128">Holt (1999), pp. 127–128.</ref> Tyler had never accepted much of the Whig economic program and he soon clashed with Clay and other congressional Whigs.<ref name="Holt 1999, pp. 127–128"/> In August 1841, Tyler vetoed Clay's national bank bill, holding that the legislation was unconstitutional.<ref>[[#May|May]], pp. 68–71.</ref>

Congress passed a second bill based on an earlier proposal made by Treasury Secretary Ewing that was tailored to address Tyler's constitutional concerns, but Tyler vetoed that bill as well.<ref>[[#Howe|Howe]] (2007), pp. 591–592.</ref> In response, every Cabinet member but Webster resigned, and the Whig congressional caucus expelled Tyler from the party on September 13, 1841.<ref>Holt (1999), p. 137.</ref> The Whigs later began impeachment proceedings against Tyler, but they ultimately failed to impeach him because they believed his likely acquittal would devastate the party.<ref>[[#Peterson|Peterson]], pp. 169–170.</ref>

Beginning in mid-1842, Tyler increasingly began to court Democrats, appointing them to his Cabinet and other positions.<ref>Holt (1999), p. 150.</ref> At the same time, many Whig state organizations repudiated the Tyler administration and endorsed Clay as the party's candidate in the [[1844 United States presidential election|1844 presidential election]].<ref>Holt (1999), p. 149.</ref> After Webster resigned from the Cabinet in May 1843 following the conclusion of the [[Webster-Ashburton Treaty]], Tyler made the [[Texas annexation|annexation of Texas]] his key priority. The annexation of Texas was widely viewed as a pro-slavery initiative as it would add another slave state to the union, and most leaders of both parties opposed opening the question of annexation in 1843 due to the fear of stoking the debate over slavery. Tyler was nonetheless determined to pursue annexation because he believed that the British conspired to abolish slavery in Texas{{efn|In actuality, the government of British Prime Minister [[Robert Peel]] had little interest in pushing abolitionism in Texas.<ref>[[#Howe|Howe]] (2007), pp. 677–678.</ref>}} and because he saw the issue as a means to reelection, either through the Democratic Party or through a new party.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 169–170.</ref> In April 1844, Secretary of State John C. Calhoun reached a treaty with Texas providing for the annexation of that country.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 170–171.</ref>

Clay and Van Buren, the two front-runners for major-party presidential nominations in the 1844 election, both announced their opposition to annexation, and the Senate blocked the annexation treaty.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 171–172.</ref> To the surprise of Clay and other Whigs, the [[1844 Democratic National Convention]] rejected Van Buren in favor of [[James K. Polk]] and established a platform calling for the acquisition of both Texas and [[Oregon Country]].<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 172–173.</ref> Having won the presidential nomination at the [[1844 Whig National Convention]] unopposed, Clay and other Whigs were initially confident that they would defeat the divided Democrats and their relatively obscure candidate.<ref>Holt (1999), p. 173.</ref>

However, Southern voters responded to Polk's calls for annexation, while in the North, Democrats benefited from the growing animosity towards the Whig Party among Catholic and foreign-born voters.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 200–203.</ref> Ultimately, Polk won the election, taking 49.5% of the popular vote and a majority of the electoral vote; the swing of just over one percent of the vote in New York would have given Clay the victory.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 194–195.</ref>

=== Polk and the Mexican–American War, 1845–1849 ===
{{Further|Presidency of James K. Polk}}
[[File:Zachary Taylor restored and cropped.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Zachary Taylor]] served in the [[Mexican–American War]] and later won the 1848 presidential election as the Whig nominee.]]
[[File:Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.png|thumb|The United States settled the Texas-Mexico border and acquired portions of seven current states in the [[Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo]]. Portions of present-day Arizona and New Mexico were later acquired in the 1853 [[Gadsden Purchase]].]]

In the final weeks of Tyler's presidency, a small group of Southern Whigs joined with congressional Democrats to pass a joint resolution providing for the annexation of Texas, and Texas subsequently became a state in 1845.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 220–221.</ref> Following the annexation of Texas, Polk began preparations for a potential war with [[Mexico]], which still regarded Texas as a part of its republic and contended that Texas's true southern border was the [[Nueces River]] rather than the [[Rio Grande]].<ref name=Merry188189>Merry (2009), pp. 188–189.</ref> After a skirmish known as the [[Thornton Affair]] broke out on the northern side of the Rio Grande,<ref name=merry240242>Merry (2009), pp. 240–242.</ref> Polk called on Congress to declare war against Mexico, arguing that Mexico had invaded American territory by crossing the Rio Grande.<ref name=merry244245>Merry (2009), pp. 244–245.</ref>

Many Whigs argued that Polk had provoked war with Mexico by sending a force under General [[Zachary Taylor]] to the Rio Grande, but only a minority of Whigs voted against the declaration of war as they feared that opposing the war would be politically unpopular.<ref>Holt (1999), p. 233.</ref> Polk received the declaration of war against Mexico and also pushed through the restoration of the Independent Treasury System and a bill that reduced tariffs; opposition to the passage of these Democratic policies helped to reunify and reinvigorate the Whigs.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 233–234.</ref>

In August 1846, Polk asked Congress to appropriate $2&nbsp;million (~${{Format price|{{Inflation|index=US-GDP|value=2000000|start_year=1846}}}} in {{Inflation/year|US-GDP}}) in hopes of using that money as a down payment for the purchase of California in a treaty with Mexico.<ref name=merry283285>Merry (2009), pp. 283–285.</ref> Democratic Congressman [[David Wilmot (politician)|David Wilmot]] of Pennsylvania offered an amendment known as the [[Wilmot Proviso]], which would ban slavery in any newly acquired lands.<ref name=merry286289>Merry (2009), pp. 286–289.</ref> The Wilmot Proviso passed the House with the support of both Northern Whigs and Northern Democrats, breaking the typical pattern of partisan division in congressional votes, but it was defeated in the Senate.<ref>McPherson, pp. 53–54.</ref>

Nonetheless, clear divisions remained between the two parties on territorial acquisitions, as most Democrats joined Polk in seeking to acquire vast tracts of land from Mexico, but most Whigs opposed territorial growth.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 252–253.</ref> In February 1848, Mexican and U.S. negotiators reached the [[Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo]], which provided for the cession of Alta California and New Mexico.<ref name=merry424426>Merry (2009), pp. 424–426.</ref> Despite Whig objections to the acquisition of Mexican territory, the treaty was ratified with the support of a majority of the Democratic and Whig senators; Whigs voted for the treaty largely because ratification brought the war to an immediate end.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 310–311.</ref>

[[File:Whig primary 1848d.jpg|thumb|A political cartoon satirizing the candidacy of either [[Zachary Taylor]] or [[Winfield Scott]] in the [[1848 United States presidential election|1848 presidential election]]]]

During the war, Whig leaders like [[John J. Crittenden]] of Kentucky began to look to General Taylor as a presidential candidate, hoping the party could run on Taylor's personal popularity rather than economic issues.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 246–247, 269.</ref> Taylor's candidacy faced significant resistance in the Whig Party due to his lack of public commitment to Whig policies and his association with the Mexican–American War.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 258–260.</ref> In late 1847, Clay emerged as Taylor's main opponent for the Whig nomination, appealing especially to Northern Whigs with his opposition to the war and the acquisition of new territory.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 277–280.</ref>

With strong backing from slavery-state delegates, Taylor won the presidential nomination on the fourth ballot of the [[1848 Whig National Convention]].<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 323–326.</ref> The Whigs nominated Millard Fillmore of New York, a pro-Clay Northerner, for vice president.{{sfn|Smith|1988|pp=22–23}} Anti-slavery Northern Whigs disaffected with Taylor joined with Democratic supporters of Martin Van Buren and some members of the Liberty Party to found the new [[Free Soil Party]]; the party nominated a ticket of Van Buren and Whig [[Charles Francis Adams Sr.]] and campaigned against the spread of slavery into the territories.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 333–334, 339.</ref>

The Whig campaign in the North received a boost when Taylor released a public letter in which he stated that he favored Whig principles and would defer to Congress after taking office, thereby reassuring some wavering Whigs.<ref>Holt (1999), p. 361.</ref> During the campaign, Northern Whig leaders touted traditional Whig policies like support for infrastructure spending and increased tariff rates,<ref>Holt (1999), p. 365.</ref> but Southern Whigs largely eschewed economic policy, instead emphasizing that Taylor's status as an enslaver meant that he could be trusted on the issue of slavery more so than Democratic candidate [[Lewis Cass]] of Michigan.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 356–357.</ref> Ultimately, Taylor won the election with a majority of the electoral vote and a plurality of the popular vote. Taylor improved on Clay's 1844 performance in the South and benefited from the defection of many Democrats to Van Buren in the North.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 368–370.</ref>

=== Taylor and Fillmore, 1849–1853 ===
{{Further|Presidency of Zachary Taylor|Presidency of Millard Fillmore}}
[[File:Millard Fillmore.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Millard Fillmore]], the last Whig president]]

Reflecting the Taylor administration's desire to find a middle ground between traditional Whig and Democratic policies, Secretary of the Treasury [[William M. Meredith]] issued a report calling for an increase in tariff rates, but not to the levels seen under the Tariff of 1842.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 445–448.</ref> Even Meredith's moderate policies were not adopted, and, partly due to the strong economic growth of the late 1840s and late 1850s, traditional Whig economic stances would increasingly lose their salience after 1848.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 685–686.</ref> When Taylor assumed office, the organization of state and territorial governments and the status of slavery in the Mexican Cession remained the major issue facing Congress.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 389–390.</ref>

To sidestep the issue of the Wilmot Proviso, the Taylor administration proposed that the lands of the Mexican Cession be admitted as states without first organizing territorial governments; thus, slavery in the area would be left to the discretion of state governments rather than the federal government.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 437–438.</ref> In January 1850, Senator Clay introduced a separate proposal which included the admission of California as a free state, the [[State cessions|cession]] by Texas of some of its northern and western territorial claims in return for debt relief, the establishment of [[New Mexico Territory|New Mexico]] and [[Utah Territory|Utah]] territories, a ban on the importation of slaves into the District of Columbia for sale, and a more stringent fugitive slave law.{{sfn|Smith|1988|pp=111–112}}

[[File:Unsuccessful 1852.jpg|thumb|upright|Gen. [[Winfield Scott]], the unsuccessful Whig candidate in the [[1852 United States presidential election|1852 presidential election]]]]

Taylor died in July 1850 and was succeeded by Vice President Fillmore.{{sfn|Smith|1988|pp=157–158}} In contrast to John Tyler, Fillmore's legitimacy and authority as president were widely accepted by members of Congress and the public.<ref name="vpmf">{{cite web|title=VP Millard Fillmore|url=https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_Millard_Fillmore.htm|website=United States Senate|access-date=27 February 2017}}.</ref> Fillmore accepted the resignation of Taylor's entire Cabinet<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 524–525.</ref> and appointed Whig leaders like Crittenden, [[Thomas Corwin]] of Ohio, and Webster, whose support for the Compromise had outraged his Massachusetts constituents.{{sfn|Finkelman|pp=73–78}} With the support of Fillmore and an impressive bipartisan and bi-sectional coalition, a Senate bill providing for a final settlement of Texas's borders won passage shortly after Fillmore took office.{{sfn|Bordewich|pp=306–313}}

The Senate quickly moved to other significant issues, passing bills that provided for the admission of California, the organization of New Mexico Territory, and the establishment of a new fugitive slave law.{{sfn|Bordewich|pp=314–316, 329}} Passage of what became known as the [[Compromise of 1850]] soon followed in the House of Representatives.{{sfn|Smith|1988|pp=188–189}} Though the future of slavery in New Mexico, Utah, and other territories remained unclear, Fillmore himself described the Compromise of 1850 as a "final settlement" of sectional issues.<ref>McPherson (1998), pp. 75–76.</ref>

Following the passage of the Compromise of 1850, Fillmore's enforcement of the [[Fugitive Slave Act of 1850]] became the central issue of his administration.{{sfn|Finkelman|pp=85–88, 103–104}} The Whig Party became badly split between pro-Compromise Whigs like Fillmore and Webster and anti-Compromise Whigs like William Seward, who demanded the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 552–553.</ref>

Though Fillmore's enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act made him unpopular among many in the North, he retained considerable support in the South. Meanwhile, Secretary Webster had long coveted the presidency and, though in poor health, planned a final attempt to gain the White House.{{sfn|Smith|1988|pp=239–244}} A third candidate emerged in the form of General Winfield Scott, who won the backing of many Northerners but whose association with Senator William Seward made him unacceptable to Southern Whigs.{{sfn|Smith|1988|pp=239–244}}

On the first presidential ballot of the [[1852 Whig National Convention]], Fillmore received 133 of the necessary 147 votes, while Scott won 131 and Webster won 29. Fillmore and Webster's supporters were unable to broker a deal to unite behind either candidate, and Scott won the nomination on the 53rd ballot.{{sfn|Smith|1988|pp=244–247}} The [[1852 Democratic National Convention]] nominated a dark horse candidate in the form of former New Hampshire senator [[Franklin Pierce]], a Northerner sympathetic to the Southern view on slavery.{{sfn|Smith|1988|pp=237–239, 244}}

As the Whig and Democratic national conventions had approved similar platforms, the 1852 election focused largely on the personalities of Scott and Pierce.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 726–727.</ref> The 1852 elections proved to be disastrous for the Whig Party, as Scott was defeated by a wide margin and the Whigs lost several congressional and state elections.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 754–755.</ref> Scott amassed more votes than Taylor had in most Northern states, but Democrats benefited from a surge of new voters in the North and the collapse of Whig strength in much of the South.<ref>Holt (1999), pp. 756–760.</ref>