|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jun 20, 2007 9:42:33 GMT -5
Jackson's involvement, either directly or through proxy, in the Texas revolution has long been debated and is, I think a subject worth addressing.
I recently received a PDF file of an article by E.C. Barker, "Jackson and the Texas Revolution" that might provide a springboard to a discussion here on the forum.
If interested forum members will drop me a PM, I'll be happy to email you a copy of the article, and then perhaps we can all join in discussing it here.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Wade Dillon on Jun 28, 2007 20:52:48 GMT -5
Jim, do you believe it's possible that Houston spoke to Jackson of Texas?
Go ahead and email me that article, please!
~Wade
|
|
|
|
Post by Carter on Mar 16, 2010 20:11:55 GMT -5
This post is more about Van Buren than Jackson, but I thought this would be a good place to put it.
From what I've read the Jackson and Van Buren presidencies were a photo copy of each other. Because of this, I would like to know why Van Buren didn't work towards the annexation of Texas. Was it because of his allegiance to Jackson's policies? Was it because of Van Buren's own policies? Or was it because the people of the United States were opposed to it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 16, 2010 22:20:33 GMT -5
During his one-term presidency, as Jackson's hand-picked successor, Van Buren bucked Jackson by opposing annexation. Van Buren was greatly concerned about the North-South political coaliton he'd built and, while he didn't want to offend slave states, also feared angering northern states by supporting the annexation of a new slave state - one so large that it was bound to add considerable pro-slavery sentiment to Congress. Van Buren tried to straddle the issue by first postponing recognition of the Texas Republic and then putting off annexation as long as possible. Both sides came down on him; northerners still accused him of supporting annexation, while southerners criticized his lukewarm attitude. Van Buren also resisted pressure from the now-retired Jackson to support annexation. Van Buren also feared that annexation would guarantee war with Mexico. Actually, as president, Jackson had pretty much followed the same course toward Texas, fearing that a debate on annexation might cause war or increase north-south animosity and jeopardize Van Buren's election to the presidency.
Van Buren was defeated when he ran for re-election in 1840, but it's not clear that his stand on Texas played a major role in his defeat. The Panic of 1837 and economic crisis were likely of greater influence, particularly when Van Buren was portrayed as a spendthrift who squandered a lot of money on the White House furnisings, etc.
However, Van Buren ran again in 1844, but Jackson deserted him in favor of James K. Polk because of Van Buren's increasing opposition to Texas annexation. According to Ted Widmer's bio of Van Buren, this was one of the few (perhaps only?) times that Van Buren made a decision based solely on conscience and what he thought was right, regardless of political fallout. He simply thought annexation was a bad idea, as many in the country did. Again, the issue of slavery was very much part of the debate, as well as treaty obligations to Mexico and fear that annexation would guarantee war. John C. Calhoun, who favored annexation largely based on the slavery issue, made a tactical error by openly stating that annexation was essential to the survival of slavery. That irked many in the north. Texas also had a public debt of $10 million that the U.S. would inherit with annexation - another negative that resonated with many in Congress.
Ironically, President Tyler (who had become president when President Harrison died only a month after taking office as Van Buren's successor), had been a Democrat-Republican, but ran as a Whig for V.P. anyway. He favored annexation and enlisted Jackson's support in his efforts to make it happen, knowing that Old Hickory still had a lot of influence and had become nearly fanatical in his drive to see Texas annexed, along with Oregon. Van Buren stood firmly against it and lost the nomination to Polk. It was, ironically, a very Crockettesque moment for Van Buren, the consummate politician, who, for once, put politics aside in favor of principle.
Allen
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 16, 2010 23:14:37 GMT -5
Polk benefited from both Van Buren's and Clay's opposition to Annexation. It's probably what won him the election.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Mar 17, 2010 9:17:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 17, 2010 11:05:12 GMT -5
That's a very good article and, although it is over 100 years old, remarkably up to date when matched against more recent literature. Van Buren's policy as president seems to have been consistent with Jackson's, even though Jackson blew a gasket when Van Buren still opposed annexation in the 1844 election. Van Buren expressed the same concerns that Jackson himself had during his presidency -- treaty obligations with Mexico; a fear that annexation would guarantee war with Mexico that would likely involve other powers, such as England and France, joining Mexico. Van Buren also shared common misgivings about proposing to bring more slave territory into the union. Apparently, there was not a huge outcry for annexation during Van Buren's term, but it grew in the years afterward.
Jackson seems to have wanted to annex Texas from the beginning, but understood the realities of the situation and knew that the time was not right. He made a persusaive argument for annexation based on national security and repeated his oft-expressed fear of foreign threats on U.S. borders and the liklihood of foreign intrigue. Later, certainly by 1844, he either thought the right time had come, or he had gone a bit bonkers over Texas, obsessing on it as he had other issues during his career (Indian removal and destroying the 2nd Bank of the U.S., for example).
Allen
|
|
|
|
Post by Carter on Mar 20, 2010 20:16:20 GMT -5
I would like to thank the people who answered my question. The article was very informative. I can already tell I will learn a lot from this forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 20, 2010 20:50:52 GMT -5
Carter,
You may want to take a look at the series of presidential biographies edited by Arthur Schlessinger a few years ago. I'm on travel at the moment and haven't got the info in front of me, but they are available on Amazon. For this period, check the volumes on John Qunicy Adams, Andres Jackson, Martin Van Buren, and James K. Polk. The Van Buren volume was written by Ted Widmer; the Jackson by Sean Wilentz. These are short, concise bios that hit the high notes and give you the essentials on these presidents. Along the way, they also give you a good idea of the issues of the time --- and the people. This is the world in which Crockett moved.
Allen
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Mar 20, 2010 21:21:15 GMT -5
Page Smith did a series of books on the development of the United States that covered a great cross section of subjects. The Nation Comes of Age which is Volume IV covers the Jacksonsian and Antebullem from 1826-1861 period. Early on I found it a good introduction to American culture during this period.
If you look at a copy Carter don't let the size scare you off. It is a good read.
|
|
