The Evening Post: A Century of JournalismNevins, Allan
History
The Evening Post: A Century of Journalism
Nevins, Allan
New York post
Yet the _Post_ never quite surrendered its independence, and tried
throughout the summer to lead a movement within the party for a proper
solution of the Texas question. There were enemies to annexation in
Texas itself, it believed; there were enemies throughout the South,
even in South Carolina, and the initial enthusiasm for it was beginning
to cool. If the Northern Democrats asserted themselves forcibly against
it as a party measure, “the day of this scheme, we are fully assured,
will soon be over.” In pursuance of this policy, Bryant, Theodore
Sedgwick, David Dudley Field, and three other New Yorkers drew up a
confidential circular to a number of Democrats of like views, proposing
a joint manifesto in opposition to annexation, and a concerted effort
to elect anti-annexationist Congressmen. This manifesto appeared in the
_Evening Post_ of Aug. 20, and made a considerable impression in New
York. But such efforts were in vain. Polk’s election made the entrance
of Texas into the Union a certainty, and it was indeed authorized by
a joint resolution of Congress the day before he took office. Bryant
must have questioned that March whether his newspaper, which had so
decisively lost its fight, should not have taken the side of the hated
Clay.
The final protests against annexation did not commit the _Post_ to
any opposition to the Mexican War. That conflict did not begin for
more than two years, until April, 1846; and the events of the interim
convinced Bryant that Mexico rather than America was responsible for
it. Polk acted pacifically, and the poet’s friend, Bancroft, then
Secretary of the Navy, wrote him that “we were driven reluctantly to
war.” Mexico had, the _Evening Post_ believed, committed numberless
aggressions upon American interests, while after severing diplomatic
relations, she would not renew them except on impossible terms. The
journal affirmed its belief (May 13, 1846) in “the inconsistency of a
war of invasion and conquest with the character of our government and
the ends for which Providence has manifestly raised up our republic.”
It said then and when peace had come that the nation would yet hold
to a fearful responsibility the Southerners who had precipitated the
annexation and the war for the perpetuation of slavery. But it did
not think that the weak and violent Mexican government had a right
to the perpetual allegiance of Texans, or to menace our territory
after the annexation. Whereas every one of sense had opposed a war
with England over the Oregon question, Bryant wrote, only one or two
newspapers were attacking this collision. Writing that “we approve of
such demonstrations of vigor as shall convince Mexico that we are in
earnest,” the editor favored a resolute prosecution of the struggle.
III
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account