In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

American politicians were not primarily motivated by sectional concerns in the early 1840s. Local and state bias, regionalism, party loyalty, class, and a wide variety of other concerns were as influential, if not more important, to the political actors in Washington. In no case is this variety of interests more salient than in the debate over Texas annexation in 1844 and early 1845. Focusing primarily on the Whig Party, this essay demonstrates that sectionalism was only one of many concerns during the “annexation crisis” of the 1840s. Furthermore, although the issue of annexation produced some sectional friction, the Whig Party retained a surprising degree of intersectional comity and cooperation on Texas. I examine the Whigs in this essay for two reasons. First, the Whig Party is traditionally perceived as the less cohesive of the two political organizations. Some historians have gone so far as to question whether the Whig Party ever existed, citing sectional disagreements among party members as evidence of its incoherence.1 A second reason is that some scholars have identified the Texas controversy as the primary cause of the Whig Party’s demise and, therefore, the beginning of a breakdown of the Second Party System. As a result, many point to the Texas controversy as a crucial turning point on the path to Civil War.2 One reason historians argue that Texas was such a sectionally divisive issue is that they have often been swayed by the testimony of Americans in the 1850s, whose retrospective view of annexation included division and dissent. A closer look at Washington politicians’ behavior during the annexation controversy itself reveals a different story. This essay traces the month-to-month negotiations and conversations of Northern and Southern Whig leaders regardingTexasannexationfrom1844to1845 .Thethoughts,words,andactions of Whigs who lived during this period clearly illustrate that when the issue of Texas annexation was on the table, it was not so disruptive. Nor would it Not So Strange Bedfellows Northern and Southern Whigs and the Texas Annexation Controversy, 1844–1845 Rachel A. Shelden 12 Rachel A. Shelden fundamentally alter sectional relationships within the party system immediately following the passage of the joint resolution in March 1845. Rather, the party remained overwhelmingly united throughout the controversy.3 The extent of party unity in 1844 and 1845 can be demonstrated in three ways. First, members of the Whig Party from both sections felt both a personal and a professional bond while living in Washington in the mid-1840s. These Northerners and Southerners did more than interact with one another in the halls of Congress. A wide variety of evidence, from boardinghouse records and personal letters to public statements and travel accounts, illustrates that Whigs from all states made friendly relationships with one another. Second, Whigs did not necessarily feel a sectional rift among them, in large part because the North and the South were not such distinct entities. The “West” and the border states did not necessarily belong to one section or another. Whigs frequently excluded South Carolina when they talked of the South because of its disunionist past. Similarly, some party members excluded known abolitionist areas when they talked of the North. Overall, for Whigs, the United States was not cleanly divided down the middle. It was a country made up of different regions, different states, and different localities , all of which included members of the Whig party. Finally, there was not a “Northern” view of Texas on the one hand and a “Southern” view on the other. Party members from both sections had a variety of motivations for opposing annexation, including party reasons, state reasons, local reasons, personal reasons, moral reasons, economic reasons, or some combination thereof. Ultimately, Whigs were united in a crucial way: they were committed to fighting tyranny and to preserving the Union. Therefore, the context in which President John Tyler pushed for annexation is crucial to understanding Whig behavior. Tyler was a rogue leader who had abandoned the party and had already upset other Whigs by blocking their economic agenda. This economic agenda was critical to maintaining a healthy and happy Union. Tyler’s tyrannical behavior and his casual disregard for the Union fueled Whig opposition to his Texas proposal.4 Thus, while sectionalism played a role in the Texas controversy—as it did in all territorial and slavery disputes in the mid-nineteenth century— the annexation debate was primarily partisan, not sectional. Whigs who did support Texas statehood were motivated primarily by political concerns, not sectional ones. Nor was the Whig...

Share