Elezioni presidenziali negli Stati Uniti d'America del 1844

Elezioni presidenziali negli Stati Uniti d'America del 1844
Stato	Stati Uniti
Data	1º novembre/4 dicembre
Collegio elettorale	275 elettori
Affluenza	78,9% ( 1,3%)
Elettori per stato federato
Presidente uscente
	John Tyler (Indipendente)
1840 1848

Le elezioni presidenziali negli Stati Uniti d'America del 1844 furono la 15° tornata elettorale quadriennale e si tennero da venerdì 1 novembre a mercoledì 4 dicembre. Il candidato del Partito Democratico James Knox Polk riuscì a sconfiggere l'avversario del Partito Whig Henry Clay, anche se solamente di stretta misura, in una competizione che vide nascere la controversia riguardo alla schiavitù e alla sua introduzione nei territori della Repubblica del Texas, che si volevano integrare negli Stati Uniti.^[1]^[2]^[3].

I temi principali affrontati nella campagna elettorale furono legati al tentativo della presidenza di John Tyler di annettere la regione texana come nuovo Stato federato schiavista; ciò contribuì in modo decisivo a minare l'unità interna sia dei Whig sia dei Democratici^[4]. Al Congresso stesso si accesero dispute sempre più aspre contro i sostenitori dell'abolizionismo^[5].

Il candidato Whig Clay adottò un programma politico nettamente contrario all'annessione, basandosi sul principio di preservazione della parità regionale tra Nord libero e Sud schiavista, e cercando anche di evitare a tutti i costi una guerra, mediante l'accettazione delle richieste messicane sull'intero territorio texano^[6]^[7]; questo costò a Clay la perdita di un gran numero di elettori meridionali e del West, dove il sostegno all'annessione era più forte^[8].

Alcuni Whig del Nord negli Stati rimasti maggiormente incerti spostarono il proprio voto sul nuovo partito dichiaratamente anti-schiavitù, il "Liberty Party"^[9]. L'ex presidente democratico Martin Van Buren cercò di ottenere la nomina a candidato del Partito Democratico, ma fu battuto alla Convention nazionale per aver deluso le richieste degli espansionisti del Sud, che volevano un candidato a favore dell'acquisizione immediata del Texas^[10]. Al posto di Van Buren ebbe così modo di emergere James Knox Polk, il primo candidato presidenziale pressoché sconosciuto ("dark horse", cavallo scuro)^[11].

Polk proponeva un programma favorevole al desiderio popolare di un'espansione territoriale, spesso definito come "destino manifesto"^[12]. Polk seppe collegare con successo la disputa di confine tra Stati Uniti e Regno Unito sulla divisione dell'Oregon Country con il dibattito riguardante l'annessione texana; in questa maniera riuscì a riunificare gli espansionisti del Nord anti-schiavitù (che chiedevano che l'Oregon divenisse uno Stato libero) agli espansionisti del Sud pro-schiavitù (che insistevano nell'acquisire il Texas come Stato schiavista). La mossa si rivelò vincente e soffiò la presidenza al concorrente prevalendo con meno di 40.000 voti di scarto^[13]^[14].

Le usuali alleanze partitiche furono scosse dalla controversia texana, ma la fedeltà di partito dei Democratici al Congresso fu sufficiente all'indomani della vittoria di Polk per far approvare una risoluzione congiunta di Camera dei rappresentanti e Senato sull'annessione texana^[15]. Il Texas poté così entrare a far parte dell'Unione come 28º Stato a partire dal 1846^[16].

Questa fu l'ultima elezione presidenziale tenutasi in giorni differenti nei diversi Stati. A partire dalle successive elezioni presidenziali del 1848 tutti gli Stati tennero la consultazione nella stessa giornata di novembre. Fu anche la prima volta in cui il vincitore perse sia nel proprio Stato di nascita (la Carolina del Nord) sia nel suo Stato di residenza (il Tennessee, per soli 123 voti), fatto mai ripetutosi sino alla vittoria di Donald Trump alle elezioni presidenziali del 2016. Fu l'unica volta in cui i due principali candidati erano entrambi degli ex Presidenti della Camera.

Nella mappa a lato i risultati; il colore blu indica gli Stati vinti da Polk/Dallas (15), mentre il camoscio quelli ottenuti da Clay/Frelinghuysen (11); i numeri rappresentano i grandi elettori assegnati a ciascuno Stato.

^ Miller, 1998, p. 481 "...pro-Texas southern Democrats [would] aggressively inject slavery into politics by their [1844] campaign for Texas."
^ Wilentz, 2008, p. 559:"Texas annexation [became] the overriding issue in the fight for the Democratic nomination."
^ Finkelman, 2011, p. 26: "James K. Polk's victory over Henry Clay in 1844 was directly tied to the Texas annexation question."
^ Wilentz, 2008, p. 567: Tyler's Secretary of State, John C. Calhoun, "...managed, in a presidential election, to polarize national politics along sectional lines" by pursuing Texas annexation.
May 2008, p. 100: "Tyler planned to outflank the Whigs by gaining support from the Democratic Party or possibly creating a new party..." p. 119-120: "On May 27, 1844, Tyler's so-called Democratic-Republican Party...held its first (and last) presidential convention in an attempt to outflank the major Whig and Democratic Parties."
Holt, 2005, p. 10: "...desirous of foiling his acerbic Whig antagonists...Tyler hit upon the annexation of Texas as an issue on which he might win the presidency in 1844."
Wilentz, 2008, p. 559:"Tyler, in league with Secretaries of State Upshur and Calhoun moved "aggressively to promote the annexation of Texas, a polarizing policy the president hoped might revise his own fading political hopes."
Merry, 2009, p. 67 Tyler "by introducing the powerful Texas issue into American politics could ride the resulting political wave and win a presidential term in his own right."
^ Freehling, 1991, p. 558: "Agitation over slavery, on both sides, was [by the early 1840s] fair play [and as] never before, anti-slavery radicals had successfully mobilized the principles of majoritarian democracy and many of its techniques – campaign newspapers, conventions, the entire machinery of popular electioneering – while attacking the great compromise over slavery on which the Democrats and Whigs based their survival."
^ Holt, 2005 p. 10: Clay attacked Tyler's annexation treaty because it would "erode the sectional comity on which the Union was based..." and "would inevitably produce a war with Mexico."
^ Wilentz, 2008, p. 427: Clay was committed to "opposing the Calhoun-Tyler [Texas] treaty" and would only consider annexation with "no hazard of war" and "general concurrence" among Americans.
^ Finkelman, 2011m p. 26: Deviating slightly form his opposition to annexation "cost [Clay] votes in the South and West, where support for annexation was strong."
^ Finkelman, 2011, p. 22: Clay "waffled" on Texas annexation" and "Had the Liberty [Party] voters supported Clay, he would have won New York [state] and the election."
^ Freeling, 1991, p. 429: "Could the black-belt South nullify Van Buren's national majority in the party? The answer was [yes].
Widmer, 2005 p. 149: "...a great [Democratic Party] North-South alliance rose up as one against [Van Buren]" and "laid the groundwork for a palace revolt" at the convention.
^ Widmer, 2005, p. 150 "...the original 'dark horse' candidate."
^ Wilentz, 2008, p. 572: "Polk stood for the [Texas] annexation as an opportunity to expand not slavery but freedom of American democratic instututions..."
Brown, 1966, p. 33: "After 1844 the party of the Jeffersonian formula sustained itself in the face of the slavery issue by giving vent to its expansionist tendencies..."
Widmer, 2005, p. 148: "Yet expansion was enormously popular among a people straining for largeness...it was the catnip of the 1840s, perfectly captured by the electric phrase "Manifest Destiny".
^ Henderson, 2007, p.139: "After a bitter campaign, Polk won the presidency by a scant thirty-eight thousand votes."
^ Wilentz, 2008, p. 571: "Above all, the [Democratic] party's aggressively pro-annexationist platform pressed not only for the annexation of Texas, but for a favorable settlement of outstanding disputes over the Oregon [Territory] border as well."
^ Wilentz, 2008, p. 576: "On February 27, 1845, the Senate voted to admit Texas...upon party lines. The next day on even stricter party lines, the House added assent..."
^ Merk, 1978, p. 308

[1] Miller, 1998, p. 481 "...pro-Texas southern Democrats [would] aggressively inject slavery into politics by their [1844] campaign for Texas."

[2] Wilentz, 2008, p. 559:"Texas annexation [became] the overriding issue in the fight for the Democratic nomination."

[3] Finkelman, 2011, p. 26: "James K. Polk's victory over Henry Clay in 1844 was directly tied to the Texas annexation question."

[4] Wilentz, 2008, p. 567: Tyler's Secretary of State, John C. Calhoun, "...managed, in a presidential election, to polarize national politics along sectional lines" by pursuing Texas annexation.
May 2008, p. 100: "Tyler planned to outflank the Whigs by gaining support from the Democratic Party or possibly creating a new party..." p. 119-120: "On May 27, 1844, Tyler's so-called Democratic-Republican Party...held its first (and last) presidential convention in an attempt to outflank the major Whig and Democratic Parties."
Holt, 2005, p. 10: "...desirous of foiling his acerbic Whig antagonists...Tyler hit upon the annexation of Texas as an issue on which he might win the presidency in 1844."
Wilentz, 2008, p. 559:"Tyler, in league with Secretaries of State Upshur and Calhoun moved "aggressively to promote the annexation of Texas, a polarizing policy the president hoped might revise his own fading political hopes."
Merry, 2009, p. 67 Tyler "by introducing the powerful Texas issue into American politics could ride the resulting political wave and win a presidential term in his own right."

[5] Freehling, 1991, p. 558: "Agitation over slavery, on both sides, was [by the early 1840s] fair play [and as] never before, anti-slavery radicals had successfully mobilized the principles of majoritarian democracy and many of its techniques – campaign newspapers, conventions, the entire machinery of popular electioneering – while attacking the great compromise over slavery on which the Democrats and Whigs based their survival."

[6] Holt, 2005 p. 10: Clay attacked Tyler's annexation treaty because it would "erode the sectional comity on which the Union was based..." and "would inevitably produce a war with Mexico."

[7] Wilentz, 2008, p. 427: Clay was committed to "opposing the Calhoun-Tyler [Texas] treaty" and would only consider annexation with "no hazard of war" and "general concurrence" among Americans.

[8] Finkelman, 2011m p. 26: Deviating slightly form his opposition to annexation "cost [Clay] votes in the South and West, where support for annexation was strong."

[9] Finkelman, 2011, p. 22: Clay "waffled" on Texas annexation" and "Had the Liberty [Party] voters supported Clay, he would have won New York [state] and the election."

[10] Freeling, 1991, p. 429: "Could the black-belt South nullify Van Buren's national majority in the party? The answer was [yes].
Widmer, 2005 p. 149: "...a great [Democratic Party] North-South alliance rose up as one against [Van Buren]" and "laid the groundwork for a palace revolt" at the convention.

[Widmer_2005,_p._150-11] Widmer, 2005, p. 150 "...the original 'dark horse' candidate."

[12] Wilentz, 2008, p. 572: "Polk stood for the [Texas] annexation as an opportunity to expand not slavery but freedom of American democratic instututions..."
Brown, 1966, p. 33: "After 1844 the party of the Jeffersonian formula sustained itself in the face of the slavery issue by giving vent to its expansionist tendencies..."
Widmer, 2005, p. 148: "Yet expansion was enormously popular among a people straining for largeness...it was the catnip of the 1840s, perfectly captured by the electric phrase "Manifest Destiny".

[13] Henderson, 2007, p.139: "After a bitter campaign, Polk won the presidency by a scant thirty-eight thousand votes."

[14] Wilentz, 2008, p. 571: "Above all, the [Democratic] party's aggressively pro-annexationist platform pressed not only for the annexation of Texas, but for a favorable settlement of outstanding disputes over the Oregon [Territory] border as well."

[15] Wilentz, 2008, p. 576: "On February 27, 1845, the Senate voted to admit Texas...upon party lines. The next day on even stricter party lines, the House added assent..."

[16] Merk, 1978, p. 308

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]