State of Parties and the Country [pp. 1-53]

12 State of Parties and the Country. [July,
iii the first instance, it availed him no longei'. He had survived
his uses as a party man. He was no longer an exponent of
party. He was wholly unprogressive. The State Rights
men of the coiuntry, everywhere, fought coldly for, or warminly
against him, when he wvas a second time the nominee. But
tile managers failed to see these things, and could they have
succeeded, they would, a second time, have subjected the
party to defeat by his re-nomination. Fortunately, the question of Texas annexation proved too strong for the mere
partisans; and when we reflect upon the monstrous selfishness, or blindness, which would have rejected a sister State,
filled with people from our own loins, who threw themselves
into our arms, and craved an alliance, we have need to be
utterly astounded at the blindness, no less than selfishness, of
that policy, which so mistakenly perilled its dearest objects
by opposition to a measure which appealed to the instincts
of the meanest citizen. But, holding himself secure of a
majority of the Convention, Mr. Van Buren could well entertain the understanding with his great Whig opponent,
that they were to be one in respect to thie Texan question.
He never dreamed of the operation of the two-thirds rule,
in a body, of more than a moiety of which hle felt himself in
secure possession. He had bagged his birds in vailln.
The election of Mr. Polk concluded the existence of the
Whig party. But of this they could not, however, then persuacle themselves. Of their weakness, they were yet sufficiently conscious, although not of its extent. This consciousness led thenm to the sacrifice of all the moral strength which
they possessed by the rejection of their own ablest men and
accustomed leaders. The very first contest with Mr. Van
Buren. they had passed by Clay and Webster, to take up
Win. Henry Harrison, a man of ordinary parts even in his
best clays. Why? It is at all times in proof of the conscious weakness of a people when they reject their prophets.
It is in proof of something more. It shows that they prefer
the success of the party, in the acquisition of power, to the
assertion of their principles. It is neither more nor less than
this, since it is only with the great men of a people that
their principles can be held secure. Inferiority, or imbecility