Editing Whig Party (United States) (section)

=== 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>